Oh hell, you work too hard as it is Scott. Leave this to the amateurs, if you wish.

I am very sorry to hear that you are related to Robert Kagan.

Losing Wars is Always Bad (Or: Why Fred Kagan is Full of Shit)

Fred Kagan is at it again. He’s written another six page article for National Socialist Review Online, so he’s got another six pages of stupidity and bullshit. He starts with this beauty:

Losing wars is always bad. One of the major reasons for America’s current global predominance economically and politically is that America doesn’t lose wars very often. It seems likely, however, that the American people are about to be told that they have to decide to lose the Iraq war, that accepting defeat is better than trying to win, and that the consequences of defeat will be less than the costs of continuing to fight.

I have to wonder if losing wars is always bad, how was the War on Iraqis good for Iraqis? I’ll have to read more to [probably not] find out!

I was pleased to find that F. Kagan immediately found use for Neville Chamberlain, famed gimp and whipping boy of the Neoconservatives.

Our Brave Modern-Day Winston Churchill, then goes into detailing what the “antiwar party” is wrong about in it’s common “talking points” (who knew that antiwar people were so influential and organized?) He starts with “THE WAR COSTS TOO MUCH” He writes,

Modern economics has long understood that the notion of a one-for-one guns-versus-butter trade-off is simply wrong. A high proportion of money spent on defense goes back into the U.S. economy in the form of salaries paid to the more than 5 million Americans employed directly or indirectly by the Defense Department, and payments to the defense industry and the long and complex supply chains from which they draw their raw materials. Military spending has traditionally been a form of economic stimulus, and wars more commonly end recessions or depressions than start them. That’s not a good reason to start a war, but neither is it a good reason to lose one.

And then follows to say that it’s a smaller percentage of GDP than some past wars. As though the percentage of GDP on defense spending actually fucking means something. Back to that first part, Brave Mr. Churchilll might want to read some slightly older economic analysis like “The parable of the broken window”. The costs that Dr. Churchill, Phd. from Harvard University in Economics, doesn’t apparently know of are that those resources consumed by the government, and the hundreds of thousands of people that have spent their forever wasted labor towards the War Effort could have instead be put to productive uses. People would have spent the tax money the Federal Gov’t used to destroy Iraqi lives on something else anyway. People could have borrowed and invested in new businesses that create jobs or R&D into producing goods and services that save and enrich people’s lives, but the Federal Gov’t used that to destroy Iraqi cities and lives instead. And finally, the US Gov’t was run by people who thought the Iraqi Destruction sooo worthwhile, that they didn’t even pay for most of it that way. They created billions of dollars out of thin air via the Federal Reserve and silently sucked wealth away from Americans and other people holding dollars. Mostly hurting the poor, working class, and people on fixed incomes.

Dr. Churchill is correct in noting that the military-industrial complex benefitted although that’s not saying very much.

He continues,

The war has caused the upcoming recession. Using mercantilist arguments common in the 18th century but subsequently shown to be wrong, war opponents have successfully spread the notion that military spending is causing the economy to slow and contract — they have been successful enough that a large majority of Americans believe this falsehood to be true.

If Dr. Churchill actually read some debunking of mercantilist arguments by, say, Adam Smith, then he might be aware that it’s not necessary for a nation to control a natural resource to obtain it on the open market. (Oil is a natural resource.)

He goes on to drone about Federal spending in relation to GDP as though that meant something significant, when, in fact, it means nothing. The USG has a much larger welfare state today than it did in 1939 when Neville Chamberlain didn’t stop Hitler something, something, etc. “Defense spending should be X% of GDP” is true why, exactly? Because the brilliant economist thinks it so? If only the Soviet Union had such geniuses who know how much of and of what variety of a goods should be produced they could have made communism workable. Of course no one can possess such knowledge people who say they can are full of shit.

Dr. Kagan Phd. Economics continues,

High gas prices are the result of the war — and ending the war would lower gas prices.

There is a huge failure of logic here. Oil prices do not rise because American forces are in the Middle East — they rise because of instability and fighting in the Middle East. One of the most dramatic increases in oil prices in history occurred during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when no American forces were present. The antiwar party argues that American failure in Iraq is inevitable and the violence will inevitably increase whatever we do.

Gas prices haven’t gone up at all. I’m not sure what Dr. Kagan, Phd. in Economics from Stanford University, is talking about here. I buy my gasoline in the reliable Polish currency with an unspellable name, and the price I pay has declined several percent since George Bush picked up the pace of his Iraqi Genocide.

What Dr. Kagan apparently doesn’t know, is that when the USG creates an assload of money out of thin air to pay for its imperial misadventures, the value per unit of that money freefalls. So, in that respect, Dr. Kagan is partially, though unintentionally correct: The price of oil can increase without a warmonger in Washington causing it to (although perhaps Dr. Kagan is unaware: The USG provided aid to both sides in the Iraq-Iran War including chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Maybe it’s ok when he used those as long as it’s not on his own people? But I digress.), but destroying the value of the US Dollar to pay for a war, does in fact cause the price of everything to go up sooner or later including petroleum.

The end of that paragraph Dr. Kagan writes this little gem,

If violence in Iraq is destined to increase, then the oil premium is destined to remain at least this high if not higher. In the real world, American forces are playing a key role in keeping the violence in Iraq down and preventing it from engulfing the region — if they are withdrawn prematurely, violence will spike and so will the price of oil.

Seeing as there is very little oil coming out of Iraq already, I’m not sure how huge a spike would be if the volume were less than it already is anyway.

As I continue on to page 3, I note that my right arm feels strangely numb, and I have begun to bleed from my left ear. F. Kagan, economic genius continues,

America just can’t afford this war any more, whatever the outcome.

This talking point is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to make recent successes and the probability of future successes irrelevant. If the U.S. and its Iraqi allies can build on recent progress and move toward a situation in which Iraqi is stable, peaceful, and a U.S. ally — thereby avoiding the collapse of Iraq, the explosion of violence, and the likely increased intervention of Iraq’s neighbors that serious historical studies as well as facts on the ground show are very likely — then the U.S. can afford the price as put in its proper context above. If success is not possible, then we must discuss the best course of action to extricate ourselves.

He links in that bit to two articles on how Iraq (which is going great, of course) could spill-over and become a regional civil war unless Wise Americans prevent it, and how Iran is interfering in their neighboring Iraq and providing training and support to Shia and Sunni groups. The second accusation is pretty funny. Of course Iran is supporting the Iranian created Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq the ruling coalition of Shia parties founded in Iran by the Ayatollahs in the 70s or 80s, and the Da’wa Party (aka Islamic Call) and the Hakim faction. Those are the new US-back Iraqi Government.

Of course Americans are also too stupid to realize this because our news media gives us a 5th grade level amount of information on the Mess’o'Potamia that our Wise Imperial Rulers have created.

So, there’s little more to be said about this.

I wanted to continue on, but my right ear is now bleeding and I have sharp pains in my chest. Dr. Kagan’s writing is just too fucking stupid to bear any further.

writer’s note: I’m posting this on Scott Horton’s Stress Blog and probably screwed up the HTML tags, hopefully a poster on with moderator status that can fix them. I’ll fix it up (correct the many typos that are probably present) and post it on my blog tomorrow most likely.

I hope no one is too offended to my repeated references to him as a big fat stupid fuck.

Get him drunk and send him to an Armed Forces recruiting station. The US Federal Government will handle the rest. It’s been doing a stellar job turning many soldiers into anti-war activists (e.g. Winter Soldier).

Seriously, good luck in trying to change his mind.

In Mr Kagen’s piece he re butts a host of so called antiwar talking points. From its too expensive, to it’s a distraction on the greater war on terrorism, to the drop off in violence is temporary. et al. but Mr Kagen only rebutts the talking points which arose as a response to pro war talking point. He never gets to the heart of the antiwar message.

The heart of the antiwar message can be expressed from a informed vantage or in layman terms but both are equally valid and must be addressed, and both must be resolved.

The antiwar message from the informed vantage is; the expansion of Pax Americana to parts of the wold which are outside of the global economy, by means of force, is in fact nothing more than imperialism. And empire is arguably un-democratic un-American and counter to our charter our constitution.

We invaded then we disbanded Iraqi’s socialist infrastructure including the national Iraq army and privatize all of the state run economy in Iraq. Well the unemployed in Iraq have nothing better to do then ferment a revolution. We thought we could Shock and Awe the Iraqi people to the point they could be easily marshaled and subservient. That did not work so well, they became too desperate with nothing to lose and gained a willingness to blow them selves up in our face.

Of the three ways to solve this dilemma one is to establish a Pax Americana along side a social safety network to make the peasants happy, like we did in post war Europe under the Marshal plan. Extending welfare, granting trade protection to Iraqi business, and to ensure all reconstruction funds go directly to Iraqis and not to foreign contractors. From the vantage of economic the ideology driving this war this option was right out.

The next way out of this dilemma is the one traditionally chosen by Empires pick a sizeable minority and let them be the strong man which oppress the majority, removing ourselves from the limelight of Empire, unfortunately we were deposing the Sunis so we could not choose them, the Kurds were right out because all our allies in the region would not stand it, and to give power to the majority means they don’t need our protection to stay in power.

The third option which we chose and is the worst of the lot; to keep the various faction fighting each other, and to impose with our own troops, a delicate balance. The balance of keeping the groups from coming together in a mass uprising, keeping them fighting each other by maintaining a low level civil war and not letting that simmering pot boil over.

The layman antiwar message is quite simple “this war is bullshit the reasons given for going are bullshit and the reasons for staying sound like bullshit too. I don’t know why we are really there if they want to have a civil war thats their problem”

Its quit possible most wars are started on false pretenses, but a common gut feeling of having been greiviously wronged, by Iraq, was never archived, matter of fact one of the selling points of the war was we are going over there to help them. The spin that we are helping them, is hollowed out by every IED and every attack, which makes it all too evident they don’t want our help. And we all know the WMD claims the Iraqi nuclear program claim and the 9/11 tie claim were all bullshit. Quit simply the common man does not understand this war but he know a house of bullshit for what it is when collapses into a stinking pile of manure.

The only way out of this pickle is a quick victory, which may have once been commonly accepted to be a normalized American footprint in a stable county who allows global multi-nationals to mine the mineral wealth, own the social services and dominate the local economy. But more and more as the violence drags on and the same rationale to maintain the war is sold to the people, well people naturally begin to question in depth what real victory in Iraq means. And more and more true victory looks like holding those who sold us the war on false pretenses and those who personally profited from the war and those who subverted our glorious American republic into a two bit empire, more and more victory in Iraq looks like holding those people to account in war crimes trials. And that means you Mr Kagen.

For those who could stomach to read all that you’re a better man than me, i couldn’t get passed the opening paragraph.

Using a false premise to justify another false premise. A high school English teacher would put a big red “F” on this poorly written position paper by “tough guy” Kagan.

My question is how many of these “Rambo’s” at National Socialist Review and their kids have ever served in the military and/or fought on the front lines of a war. I already know the answer but its a fair question. I always love it when “sniveling little pussies” like Kagan try to get others to do their fighting for them. These guys are propagandists who specialize in lies and deception and are too cowardly to do their own fighting.

If there was a draft, these guys should be the first to go.

There’s only one effective argument, the argument from morality, since facts and evidence mean nothing to the brainwashed.

Tell him that you have no problem with his having his opinion and you would not wish him shot or imprisoned for having it. Then ask him if he will return the courtesy and allow you to have your opinion without getting shot or imprisoned. When he grudgingly agrees get his assurance that he will then support your right to not be taxed to support what you consider to be a moral abomination.

After all, if you are to be threatened with violence and forced to support his war hobby, then in what sense are you actually free to disagree?

Mike Waite

Patreaus hearing - how long has it been on…?

been on for about 1 half hours now, maybe more, LIEbermans on now, and quell surprise they’re talking about “Iranian backed special groups” causing trouble in Iraq. That Lieberman guy is totally and utterly obsessed with bombing and killing Iranians, he’s practically frothing at the mouth.

A summary of the “progress report”-

“making progress, but must keep troops there”

“al qaida on the run but not defeated”

“Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran”

Arguments involving morality and principle are not going to work. You need an argument based on selfishness. Ask what are the big picture objectives in the region. To protect oil.- Baloney. The Saudis will pump oil at world prices no matter what.If you beleive that
Natan Sharansky democracy crap, you are hopelessly naive/stupid and there is no hope in going on.
Prior to 91 we had no US forces on the ground in that part of the world. Some marines on ships to deploy in case the need arose to evacuate US citizens and state department people if that need arose, but basically, the whole region was a British headache. Then came the clean break
crowd in 1996. after the Gulf war. Basically the suggestion was that the US move aggressively into the theater to advance Israeli strategic interests in the area. Without debate, thats what we did. Instead of leaving after the Gulf war in 91, we participated 911 and
became regional players, for no reason other then the a Zionist clique managed to move their cells into the Dept of Defense and other places where they could subvert the intelligence agencies and create basically a series of lies that got us into it. DO WE WISH TO
REMAIN A JACKASS LEFT OUT IN A HAIL STORM?. We just junker down and take it?. Somebody needs to ask the basic question, other than maneuvering the US into a posture so we can menace Iran and Syria, the whole darn point of the exercise. why can’t we find a few people in the media and in one party of the other that are willing to give the finger to the authors of this fetid fifth column manifesto:
Get off our knees for a change.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

is it just coincidence this news is being reported today ?

it’s no coincidence for smudge to be hyping it up.
he doesn’t bother to note on his site what all the pomp is about.

OK so why am I wrong? I think people here disagree that this tack, questioning the whole rational for regional military presence. Are we not supposed to “go there”. Why do we have to accept the whole reason for being in the region? If we can’t discuss why
we should be there, and only discuss how we can’t lose a war? So the axiom that we can’t challenge is that the US must be the worlds only super power, and can’t take the body blow of being defeated again? Why can’t we have a discussion of the root reasons.
Oil - lets examine that . It’s ridiculous. Iran, Saudi Arabia etc will continue to pump their heads off, if we are there or not. Is the real case, - there are alQaeda there now? Is that IT. the whole thing? The Sunni tribes seem to be quite good at keeping alQaeda down.
At very least, we need to get good and mad at the Likudniks that were the motivating force. They are at it again, and unless we have permission in the PC press to get pissed at them, and take off the gloves, and ignore the real stragetic reasons why we are there, we will continually get bogged down in the tactical reasons why we have to stay. If people say- gee you can’t blurt out “THAT”. - are we really there? Are we really on our knees we we can’t even discuss it, even here, much less in the press or TV?
Why can’t we pine for the days before ‘91, when we weren’t in the middle east at all? We can never leave if we don’t discuss the truth. Imagine a country that could appoint a guy like Woolsey as the director of the CIA? Maybe between ZOA meetings with Feith etc,
he actually was the face of the US intelligence assessment in the region? Have we totally lost our mind, or just our country?

Not suppressed. true Just a recognition that this is THE factor that got us into this mess. Not oil, Not Haliburton. …. We stand in our shoes and wonder why we are not spending a trillion dollars and 4000 soldiers to bring to fruition the goal of a peaceful and indefinite occupation of Zimbabwe, or Chad etc. There is a simple answer, but we always muddy the water with other secondary reasons. We need to get PISSED. Imagine appointing Doug Feith, a person tied to the settler movement personally and in his firm, with realtives living in Israel, an ZOA meeting attender, — appointing such a person as under secretary of defense, and allowing the OSP to run a disinformation shop in the pentagon to feed their lies to the press and to the rest of the defense and executive establishment. Not hiding it is one thing, and you do that, but calling out as THE reason we(US- McCain) is willing to spend almost any capital, in money and soldiers lives, to achieve a benign occupation in Iraq. is ONLY to project power and restrain Iran and Syria. Somebody in the press
needs to say this. Day after day I see this dodgeball on the TV to avoid saying the I word. It’s shameful how a great country could come to this. We have really lost our liberty. Somebody might say Dryfus, and the accusers would wither and die I guess.

I would like to see the matter framed in a public forum as one of this . This clique- agents of a foreign power, not unlike Alger Hiss but more open, have managed to achieve such a position of power that the 1000 pound gorilla in the room can’t be notices.
Israel has become a curse to the United States and the world. Harsh words but maybe talk like this could be the start of fixing the problem, like when Reagan called the USSR the focus of evil in the world.

I think for Bush it was more an issue of avenging the assassination attempt on his father. I think with Cheney it was about strategic control of the region. Likudniks want fewer threats to Israeli regional hegemony.

I meant to say: What a crappy Zionist conspiracy it would have to be, they’ve empowered the Iranians and given Al Qieda, and other anti-American and antisemitic, terrorists throughout the Mideast their greatest recruiting advertisements.

I can’t seem to type today.

Now we are getting somewhere.v Lets talk about it. Why will Cheney and Bush not achieve similar success in any other part of the world? Talk of 100 year occupations etc? Those drunk with power and eager to see it exercised are accomplices, but without
the likudnik types, they would not have decided that THIS particular part of the world needs US power projection and domination. The neocons are the “sine qua non” of the whole mess. They may have fellow travelers, but a Christian and Jewish Zionists coalition,
a ZOA, radical settler movement clique , basically DID it. They had and spent the required political and monetary capital. They spent it well. They Rosen Weisman trial is now postponed. The Anthrax issue- Dr Zack et.al . disappears down the memory hole.

You are right, it could not have been done only by them, but many of the necessary people, Bush, Cheney, came along via the Haggee Christian Zionist route. Some were bought. Everybody in the press is intimidated- fear is a factor. Remove the Israeli security
factor, and we would not be doing this. Add the coercion and some AEI types drunk with power, and add those which don’t wish to make an enemy of the pro Israeli lobby on this critical issue- you get the critical mass you need. This conversation could not be
had in a national forum, TV or Press. not for more than a minute. Mearsheimer and Walt danced around the issue but remain non Pissed off. We need more people pissed off. People in the rest of the world are less circumspect. People know what the Lavon affair is.
Not in the US. Read about McCains Dad, the Admiral, and how he shook down the USS Liberty crew and did the cover up on that. We don’t understand the motives of everybody involved, but lately, I am not inclined to give that bunch the benefit of the doubt any more,
mostly because it can’t be openly discussed by people who are anybody or have anything to lose.

Those parts of the equation, those you say “it could not be done without”, they are only the background mischief makers and cowards, people easily frightened. People with pure monitary interests, or pure parochial job security consideration/ AEI types, drunk with the concept of America, the worlds only superpower, will climb aboard any military undertaking, but they like to follow orders, not make policy for the most part, and they are not the spark plugs in this. Many motives are just plain unknown. Many friends of Cheney in 91
say the Cheney of today is not the pragmatist he was then. Who know what motivates this character, but I bet the story is interesting.
So Scott- you say- Don’t get pissed at a country where we can’t say the I word on TV regarding this whole misadventure? I listen to c-span in the morning and I see the tortured path the guests go through to avoid framing the discussion as one of basically
Israeli manifest destiny. Who in the press and both parties would be dumb enough to cross this bunch? Not many. Buchanan is still smarting for his “Amen corner” in 91. He will never be allowed forget it. A.M. Rosenthall used go at him day after day in the NY times
You have to have a death wish to cross this bunch. Ask Rep. Findley.

If that’s their “goal”, they’re even dumber than I thought. What do they think a wider regional war will do to the U.S. military? It’s already in trouble from just Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the draft is reinstated, there will still be enough time for the situation in Iraq to become totally untenable. The U.S. would, at the very least, have its hands full in Iraq and pull any forces from Iran back just to hold on, let alone help out Israel. Also, Israel has already lost to Hezbollah before and they’ll definitely attack as part of the wider war, even if that U.S. ship off the coast remains. And all for what, Iran held back for a number years at the cost of a weakened, but still blood enemy in Iraq, U.S. military capacity wasted in Iraq and more terrorism than ever. That must be what “victory” is.

troy- once we are “attacked” by Iran, engineered to look that way, the whole dynamic changes. The US puts on its pearl harbor war face, and we are in a whole other world of a mobilized country at war. Even a sour economy and its troubles can be blamed on the treacherous Iranian fanatics. Domestic sacrifice is what is expected in a country at war- like the good old days of WWII, one for all, all for one. gold start mothers … That where they want to take us. The goal is a basically to reduce the capacity of Iran to take its rank as a powerful technically competent, and maybe nuclear knowledgeable regional power. Hezbolah, as a client of a un- humbled Iran, would prevent Israel from responding to events in Lebanon. That’s the Zionist nightmare.
Hey - why did Clinton pardon Mark Rich. Why did he appoint Woolsey? …. why why. WHY would anybody hire these agents of a nuclear armed foreign power which plausible reasons to get us into a war in the Middle East? Well I say its time go get angry. Not at Israel. They do what they do for what they think is necessary for the survival of Israel as a Jewish state. But angry at the neocons and the gutless wonders who refuse to confront them.

In what sense do we have a country anymore? No US press will dare discuss this. No political parties will stand up and say no. We have essentially lost it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Franklin

Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in what he claims was an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of that organization are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000. The case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ultimately, Franklin was charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, not with espionage.

Franklin at the Office of Special Plans

In 2002 and 2003, Franklin worked at the Office of Special Plans which was set up by Donald Rumsfeld. The office was led by prominent conservative Douglas Feith. Under Feith’s authorization, Larry Franklin met with Iran-Contra figures; critics allege they discussed Iraq intelligence, while supporters say they discussed only the War on Terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Feith
Feith was one of three siblings born to Rose and Dalck Feith. His father, Dalck, was a member of the Betar, a Revisionist Zionist youth organization, in Poland, and a Holocaust survivor who lost his parents and seven siblings in the Nazi concentration camps. He came to the United States during World War II, and became a successful businessman, a philanthropist, and a generous donor to the Republican party.

A subordinate of Feith’s, Larry Franklin, was convicted, and sentenced to 12 years in Federal prison in 2005 for charges in an espionage scandal. Franklin was accused and convicted of passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat and Steven Rosen, an employee of the Israeli AIPAC lobby. The ongoing FBI counter-espionage probe into improper transmission of classified information to AIPAC from 1999 to shortly before the 2003 Iraq Invasion could involve Feith , who refuses to comment on the investigation. Franklin was one of 1,500 employees at Feith’s Pentagon office, and officially worked six layers of bureaucracy beneath Feith. However, while leading the Office of Special Plans Feith used Larry Franklin repeatedly for sensitive meetings involving foreign citizens, overseas.

According to the The Guardian, Feith’s office had an unconventional relationship with Israel’s intelligence services:

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
“None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.

BB-

No no, I’m not related to the Kagan Klan.

Scott-

You madman. I’m humbled.

Hey Oscar, I know yer not related to Kagan. I was just shitin’ ya. Bad attempt at humor.

I mean that they will cause even more problems than they could potentially solve. Once Israel uses nukes, the Palestinians will realize that they have nothing to lose, Israel will either kill them nukes or force them into apartheid (even more than now). I don’t whether they’ll just accept their situation for now or go into a spasm of violence, but the Israel is setting itself for potentially even worse consequences once the Palestinians become the majority. The Israelis will end up having to exterminate or deport them all to survive because of the problems with apartheid. Also, once nukes start getting fired, there’s the risk of other strikes from other nations getting nervous and firing theirs. Pakistan, just across the border of Iran, would get understandably nervous and could get involved. There’s a good chance that completely end it’s “Western Friendly” status and become another enemy of Israel, if only because of the fallout. The fallout and environmental consequences would spread beyond just Iran, far beyond depending on how fast and loose the U.S. and Israel get with the nukes. Nuclear winter and radiation could spread throughout Israel and even “The Holy Land” America itself.

troy- forget nuclear. Just smash every power station, bridge, sewage treatment plant, transformer complex, runway, seaport, water treatment plant, factory, railroad, military and training facility, and anything connected with their nuclear program in Iran.
We could do this in a week, like we did to Serbia and Iraq. The Serbians were so shell shocked that they whimpered a little bit, but basically took it, and caved in. When the leaders discover their elevators don’t work, they cant get a drink of clean water, or find a working bathroom to take a dump, unless they are willing to live in the rubble, they will agree to some terms we will lay down. That is the hope. They may find that the Iranians are a far more determined foe than the Serbians. They may be willing to live in rubble than to agree
to halt their nuclear power program and stop support for Hezbolah, and generally sue for peace, leaving their wrecked country behind, and Israel will have this rubble-ized foe to deal with instead of a rising technological regional peer.
The excuse for war might be a naval altercation in the Persian Gulf, which we could easily gin up as a unprovoked attack on some littoral US navy vessel seeking safe passage, after machine-gunning some skiff that approached too close. Some Iranian hothead group, only semi official like those students in the Sha days, might launch a anti ship missle, which the cia managed to get into the hands of some shadow group like the PKK which might be willing to be complicit in ginning up the altercation. So dead sailors in the water, and an unprovoked attack in international waters- gulf of tonkin, immediate Naval response, Iranian pride might not allow them to just roll over an take it,– and there you have it. Attacks by Iranians sympathizers … Remember, this does not need to be concluded in a satisfactory manner from the US perspective for the neocons to break out the champaign and cigars. Only that the might of the US is brought to bear to de-industrialize Iran so it would take decades to fix.

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.

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.

What I meant was: “Either they’ll use the Samson Option and start a nuclear winter…”

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.

and 40 Iraqis

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.

…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?

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.