Comments on: Someone please help me shred this so-called argument.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:21:33 +0000

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.

By: Mace Price

Mace Price — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:29:46 +0000

…The fuckers are playing a Middle Eastern version Monopoly-Risk, and with our lives and money.

By: Mace Price

Mace Price — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:10:20 +0000

…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?

By: Mace Price

Mace Price — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:34:35 +0000

…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.

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:47:26 +0000

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.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:08:32 +0000

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.

By: Anders

Anders — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:27:15 +0000

and 40 Iraqis

By: Anders

Anders — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:26:29 +0000

7 US soldiers have died today, the US must be really in the thick of the fighting out there at the minute, very sad.

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:40:50 +0000

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.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:09:39 +0000

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.

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:48:27 +0000

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

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:46:38 +0000

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).

By: peter saker

peter saker — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:14:38 +0000

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.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:29:50 +0000

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.

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:58:27 +0000

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.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:29:57 +0000

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.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:56:00 +0000

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.

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:08:19 +0000

But I guess Iran will still be farther behind Israel, even with nuclear winter and fallout. “Real success” indeed.

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:01:12 +0000

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.

By: peter saker

peter saker — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:11:55 +0000

Troy -
How do you define “real success”. So far as the US achieving some satisfactory conclusion- you are right, but for Israel, a war with US, even without nukes, will destroy the infrastructure of Iran for decades. Look at what we did to Serbia, Power bridges, industry ,sewage treatment, roads, all infrastructure is fair game in a regional war. Look at what a mess we made of Iraq. They still dont have electricity at pre war levels. If this kind of damage was inflicted on Iran, then they would be set back in any attempt to be a
serious rival to Israel. Technically and Economically, such a blow to Iran would give Israel 20 years to figure out how to digest the post 67 war territory. Hezbolah is how arming some forces in Gaza, and with a powerful and unhumbled Iran, this could spread to the west bank. From the standpoint of Israeli manifest destiny, this kicks the can down the road for 20 years, and gives Israel time to come up with a solution without being threatened with an advanced technical capable opponent
The “real success” from the standpoint of the nencon in the street would be to salvage the mess by recasting any conflict with Iran in terms of justifying the strategy of building a US forward base in Iraq from which we could carry on the war against the dastardly Iranians which (fill in the excuse).

By: Bob Bogus

Bob Bogus — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:32:16 +0000

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

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:00:34 +0000

No problem homey. I hope that helps. Let me know.

Now that I think about it, my responses were probably so insulting that they won’t convince your relation there, but I did delete the worst of it…

: )

By: Oscar Goldman

Oscar Goldman — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:08:46 +0000

BB-

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

Scott-

You madman. I’m humbled.

By: Troy

Troy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:12:08 +0000

I wasn’t saying the neocons wouldn’t do it, just that they won’t achieve any real success. They’ll make more problems than could even potentially be solved, even that’s generous to say. Short of annihilating all the Palestinians, destroying Hezbolah, or at least weakening it, won’t end Israel’s troubles. When they use nuclear weapons on Iran, they’re going to keep using them on “enemies” because the precedent had already been set. I wonder how long it’ll take China to just call in their loans and Saudi Arabia to get rid of their dollars and end it all.

By: ohforpeatsaker

ohforpeatsaker — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:35:36 +0000

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.