A relative of mine thinks the Iraq War was (and remains) a good idea. AHe is continually brainwashed by Weekly Standard and NRO balderdash. A
This is what he calls an unbeatable caseAfor his views. AHe must be shown the error of his ways. AIt is a family affair. A Somebody help me show him the light with a good rebuttal.
So what will Israel do with the 10 or 20 years? IN the west bank, if it can continue to build walls around Palestinian towns and strangle their roads and economy with checkpoints, and continue to create more and more settlements with private security roads,
then the hope is that the population of these towns will decrease, or at least not grow as fast as settlements could be created. Lacking any sort of technically sophisticated support, that might arise from an alliance with Hezbolah backed by an Industrial power fueled by oil and gas money, the Palestinians could be crushed, at least as a serious force, in 10 years. On the other hand, with anti tank shaped charges, and anti aircraft missles rumored to be in the hezbolah pipeline now, the Palestinians only option would be to look mad and pathetic (as they do now), Only when the Mudjadeen got the stingers and other weapons from the US did their fortunes rise. The Palestinians, without a technical and industrial and financial sponsor like Hezbolah might grow to be, can wither in 10 or 20 years to the
margins. This is the neocon dream. Securing the “realm” and keeping Israel a Jewish state. How many US soldiers would this dream be worth to them. If they had to lie us into war to do this, would that be moral? What do you think they would say.
If they don’t go nuclear, they’re going to have to deal with a full scale Shia uprising in Iraq. Not like the last one where Sadr called it off before he had too many casualties or too much collateral damage, but a full-on revolt like the 2005 Sunni uprising. Since the Shia are the majority and Sadr has built up his forces, it will much bigger than anything before. Once the situation becomes untenable in Iraq the U.S. will have to abandon it. The cost of this war will lessen what the U.S. can do to help out Israel in the future, other than just financial military aid. Also, Iran is much larger than Serbia and Iraq and the U.S. was not bogged down Iraq at the times of those bombing, so Iran’s entire industrial infrastructure would probably take longer than a week to destroy. From all reports about Iran, Iranians will not just roll over for machinations of Israel and America. Israel can expect more terrorism from not only the Palestinians but potentially the now-vengeful youth of Iran. As far as Hezbolah is concerned, the organization itself might fall but another could replace it. The Sunnis in Iraq have been able to sustain an insurgency against the U.S. for the past six years, so the Palestinians probably could get the same level of support that Iraqis have (especially given how angry the Arabs will be over the wider war). But, Iran will be pushed back for at least several years, even though the U.S. will lose Iraq (to what extent we “have” it), the U.S. military’s diminished capacity and increased terrorism. That’s “victory” for neocons apparently.
troy- This is real interesting. You are a very thoughtful person and I can learn something from your responses. However The shit fix that the US would be in is of no consequence to the neocons. All they want is the destruction of industrial Iran. Even if the US
finds Iraq unmanagable, with the US having a full war face on in a regional war, this would resemble more a conventional war than an insurrection, and the US could treat the adversaries with a brutal hand, with no pr consequences back home, as we would all be shit faced angry at Iran after the media was through. I am not giving an argument about what will happen, only a neocon wet dream of what might plausibly happen. A full shiite uprising in Iraq would give the US the green light to abandon this absurd Makili shadow government cover story, and they might hope to apply real military power to Sadar, without any figleaf of respecting civilians (country at war and all that you know). The US flushes out their true enemies, forget Maliki, he and the Badr brigade buddies would be the first
to go. The US seems to think it is in a better position to handle high intensity conflict than a stubborn insurgency with marginal home front support. The US would rally behind a high intensity conflict, and how that would play out is hard to tell, but Iran would be
wrecked, which is the important result. If it had two nickles to rub together, the US would support Israel, and against what foe if Iran and Syria were gone? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?. Israel would have no serious industrial oil revenue foe’s for a decade or two. I would not bet on an insurgency if it has no access to a technically advanced neighbor. The dream is that the Palestinians would be reduced to a indian tribe like status in the US, on reservations, isolated, and forgotten in their misery.
Iran is of course far bigger than Serbia, and if you wanted to invade the place, a nightmare, mountains and all, but the urban areas in Iran with the infrastructure that makes it a nascent industrial oil giant is not so big. I week or two is all it would take. Their oil revenue would dry up, and we have the “I hate Iran” club in Europe in fine trim. Russia would fuss, but in two weeks, the damage would be done.
Suppose the above neocon dream is not realized, and they don’t roll the dice in such a war. Iran would grow into a oil fueled regional technical and nuclear capable (power anyway) power, and the specter might materialize of Hezbolah infusing Hammas and other west bank resistance groups with the tools to resist being put on reservations and wither. So suppose the events in a war have a probability of 50 percent of destroying Iran, and 50 percent of failing to destroy Iran or worse, pissing off the US. If the neocons do nothing like this, what is the probability of them achieving manifest destiny in the west bank with a powerful foe like Iran in the way. I think the neocons will toss the dice. I think binLadin would take a choice too and want to toss the dice in a regional war, in the
event the US could be humbled in the enterprise. They would be only too willing to aid the effort to gin up this war in whatever way they could.
http://www.forward.com/articles/12998/
Just in case Obama and McPeak get too close, there is a strategy to stop him. ( Obama is way way to much of a socialist for me to vote for him, but on the war, guys like Gen McPeak are a gasp of hope. Expect some extreme smoke filled room moves if
Obama gets within the range that he can be stopped by cloak room skulduggery.
I guess your right, it’s more than likely Israel will be able divide the Palestinians up with walls set up a fully apartheid situation. I still think no matter how brutal the U.S. gets in Iraq, they’ll have to at least get some ally on their side to even be able to stay (short of total genocide). Of course, that’s reality and neocons don’t deal with that too well, as Kagan has demonstrated. I was just trying to show that even from a completely selfish, immoral, Machiavellian perspective that neocons use that starting a war with Iran will cause more long term negative consequences than positive. Not caring about what happens to America could be what brings Israel ultimately, since the U.S. is their biggest ally and the growing Muslim populations of Europe will not likely be empathetic (having seen members of the Ummah slaughtered to maintain Israel’s dominance) to Israel. If and when the Jewish state falls, that will not be a pretty sight to say the least. Either they’ll use the Samson Option and start a nuclear weapon or, if that’s not possible because of some later development, the Jewish people there will be slaughtered in “revenge” (most will obviously people who had nothing to do with neocon machinations).
What I meant was: “Either they’ll use the Samson Option and start a nuclear winter…”
Troy.You bring up an interesting point. It’s interesting to wonder how we will handle the Iraq situation in the face of a serious dust up with Iran.
I think after the party gets started, Sadar WILL try to rise up, and the Badr brigades too, but with our war face on, if Sadar comes out into the street, under the rules of engagement of a general war rather than an insurrection, the US can use air power without restraint, and Sadr city will be cinderized. Out in the open, against US combat troops is exactly what the US wants. They can be wiped out, and nobody will be counting the bodies (war rules you know). Why- its a general uprising sponsored by our now enemy in Iran. bombs away. Meanwhile, the Sunni will inherit the whole place if they are smart enough to keep their head down.- just like the Saddam days. The US will be able to find some Sunni toad. The Saudis might help, they hate Iran or at least feat it. All that needs to be done is to cobble up some plausible peace arrangement in Iraq, cause the real objective, clobbering Iran, will be a done deal. The aftermath only needs to be managed, and in the face of a high intensity conflict, you don’t want to get in the way of the US when all the stops are removed from the use of tactical air. The Sunni can have Iraq back if they play alone, and if we are sufficiently brutal, we will find respect and even admiration among the Sunni tribes if they will benefit from being neutral. They can have the whole damn place, Our work here is done for the most part will be our attitude. Even if it turns sour, we can leave the whole stinking mess in Iraq, and the neocons can still count that as a victory if Iran is smashed.
That is a good point about the Sunnis, as long as they stay neutral, they’ll get to have another Sadaam. It’s possible that the neocons could have trouble getting the war hysteria up like last time if only because they’re so unpopular from the Iraq debacle. Case in point, the Gulf of Tonkin-like non-starter incident last year in Hormuz. They’ve already got the flag wavers on their side but how much of the rest of America will go along is an open question. If they are dumb enough (they probably are), sell all your stock in Iran while you still can.
7 US soldiers have died today, the US must be really in the thick of the fighting out there at the minute, very sad.
and 40 Iraqis
Off in fantasy land for a minute:
Troy– you are right. its going to have to be a convincing incident. Lots of dead sailors in the water might do it, But how could such a thing be engineered? You got me thinking about how it might be done.
Iran does not want war with the US. really really does not. From the neocon point of view, whats needed is a Shiite version of alQaeda. Shiite but international and hates the US with a passion. If they find such a group, and fund it properly carefully under the table, a false flag operation could be undertaken.
Here is a list of Shiite groups that one may consider. None look like a good bet. Even the Amal militia , an offshoot/rival of Hizbaloh that committed the marine barracks attack , is basically local in focus- Lebanon in particular. Whoever did it, would have to realize they are playing into the hands of the US that wants to
put the US and Israel on the tail of Iran to destroy it. What Shiite group would not buy into this strategic vision. Makes you wonder how binLadin rationalized calling down the lightening on world Islam on 911, but he felt in a wide war, the US could be beaten. It would take a Shiite group with that same kind of “bring it on” mindset, and was willing to make the US over-reach in their destruction of Iran. Somebody thinking real real long term and willing, like binLadin, and the neocons, to “roll the bones”.
http://www.ict.org.il/var/119/45024-Shiite%20Groups%20and%20Fractions_Yael%20Shahar.pdf
This is a good summary of the candidates, and none seem suitable. If some tiny faction, maybe some group of Sadr followers who had their family killed in Sadr city by the US army. Thats all it takes. Not much of a movement, Just motivation and rage, and some degree of technical skill. How would they get their hands on an anti ship missile? Steal one from Iran would be best. After all, the idea is to pin it on Iran anyway. Such a convoluted plot seems hard to carry out. very hard. But you can bet very evil people are looking for a way to make it seem like Iran started it. Roosevelt in 1941, (and Churchill) had a much easier time in conjuring up Pearl Harbor. 911 may have been such an effort, can never know, but here we are, in a fight forever with Islamofascism. US and Israel against the world. google “dancing Israelis” and you see what I mean.
After really thinking about it, I think we won’t bomb Iran any time real soon as pre-emptive war. The political fallout would not allow it. It would have to occur based on a false flag attack. The probability of success of such a venture is not possible for a man on the street to estimate. Finding an existing group would be problematic. The creation of a new Shiite alQaeda from scratch, and substituting the culture and religion part from the Shiite tradition, and taking the internationalism and very long range vision part from alQaeda might be something to worry about. Remember that Hamas was created by Israel as a foil to arab nationalism, so get the right bunch of fellows and a couple of bucks. who knows what mischief could be accomplished.- But who knows the unforseen consequences , but that does not seem to stop the fans of intricate plays like that either- wisdom is not their long suite- but it does not mean it won’t be attempted.
That Shia “al Qaeda” seems like a plausible solution to the neocon problem, though the unpredictable nature of the plan could doom the whole operation from getting off the ground. I’d like to say the neocons might receive legal punishment for setting up a situation where American military personnel, but we’ve already seen that senior government personnel are completely above the law for all practical purposes. I was just thinking of what you wrote earlier, however, suggesting Feith had this planned all along. I’ve never heard of evidence about that, all I’ve seen and heard is that the neocons thought Iranians would surrender, revolt against their government and beg to be forgiven for their sin of disobeying America and Israel. If the plan was to invade Iran all along why did they go about this route? Why not try to set up another Iran/Iraq War? Let the Arabs and Persians do all the fighting amongst themselves and bomb Iran’s industry for its “aggression”. Perhaps set up the war with their own Chalabi. Chalabi’s one of the main reasons I don’t believe any of the neocons had it planned out that well ahead of time.
…These present Oil Executive as “Democratic” arbiters of The Global Realpolitik are even now considering the capabilities of The People’s Liberation Army in terms of expansion into Iran.
…China wants to control the Worlds Petroleum resources, but not before there’s a hell of a lot of trouble…What a way to die huh?
…The fuckers are playing a Middle Eastern version Monopoly-Risk, and with our lives and money.
Troy- I don’t think Feith – OSP etc planned ever detail since 1991, but I do believe they wanted US boots on the ground, in theater, where US power could be applied. Evidence of what somebody wants is never possible, but there was a turn at “clearn breal” time in the neocon calculus that direct action by the US with forces on the ground was the way to go. and if you are playing chess, you can’t plan the opponents moves, but you can place your pieces in the area where the action unfolds. I think we can make a fair case that
that is what powerful connected people like Feith, maneuvered us into. Right after 911, what is the first thing the neocons thought.. Iraq. Why- because it’s 1) Doable, 2) In theater for the mischief they were going to gin up.