Somewhere, a long way back, in some post or article, I predicted the Repubs would boost Iran dramatically as THE new way to accuse Dems of being soft on defense. It felt like a very cynical call at the time. It doesn't seem cynical enough right now watching Rudy.
Risk-taking is not the same as trigger-pulling.
The serious risk calculators know we can pop Iran whenever, and so they're willing to double-down on other routes, seeing the whole board--finally.
The silly, blinders-on types just want Iran hit now--damn the consequences. That, of course, is an easy call sitting here in the States.
Today, 30 gets you ten--as in, the average 30 days of war gets you ten years of post-war/counter-insurgency.
If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
Abdol Hakim,is one of deciding fators,besides the Pakistan,Turkery/
kurds,US oppinion,world's political climate,oil,US army.the pressure
Hakim (and malaki,talebani) puts on US,in case of an attack is real,by
doing so,it causes Hakim and the south turn on against the US troops in Iraq,and because US dosen't have the army to enter Iran,it
is not the senerio that the militery wants.thats why we see the up
coming meeting between Iran and US,because of Hakim is back in Iraq,and putting pressure.besides,US and the mullas have the tied
destiny in Iraq, US wants the oil,Iran wants the Najaf,Basrea,Karbala
.US wants the brake up of Iraq,which is ok for Iran as long as it gets the south. But unfortunetly,what all these threats of attacks do is to
strenghts the mulla's regime,and ables them to rally the people behind them, and prolong thier existance.it really works against the
people effords towards democracy,and goes to show you another
example of this admin's failed policies.
Posted by farhad | November 27, 2007 11:06 AM
Tom,
I agree with your premise, even if I do not agree that all the Iran sabre rattling is politics. Iran does pose some problems for us in the core; I'm for a good old revolution with a limit military engagement. My fear is that the radical islamic elements will not go away fast enough.
Posted by Kevin Hartford | November 27, 2007 9:02 PM
Dan and Dave--
Slow down there on the bomb-and-run strategies. I think the clearest answer to Dan's original question is the history of Afghanistan, 1989-2002. Bombing or invasion won't bring a country or its people out of the Gap--it just entrenches them more in that state of civilization. Iraq showed us that America is not a "liberator," no matter how good out intentions are. It's the SysAdmin activity that moves the people out of the Gap, and they'll bring their country with them.
If Afghanistan, if we really did "bomb them back to the Stone Age," they'll just stay there without foreign intervention and assistance for the recovery phase. And there, central control over the population was already loose. In Iran, where central control is a little tighter, imagine what happens when that disappears in a flash: Chaos. The rise of a democratic state from that is only one of the possible outcomes without guidance and support from outside.
Post-WW2 Europe and Japan would not have recovered to Core status without the intervention of many states and programs, not least of which were those of the US. Not that I think the Cold War was the best outcome, but we need to look at the present Gap in a similar way. If only we had an Administration and Congress with enough balls (no offense to any lady readers) and foresight to put together something like the Marshall Plan to follow responsibly on the GWOT doctrine.
Posted by Matthew Garcia | November 28, 2007 8:48 AM
I suppose that if you really think that you can take out Iran's nuclear facilities with surgical bombing, sort of like Israel did with Iraq several years back, and that's all you want to do, then there is no need for any post-war. I am more than a little skeptical that this is technically feasible, as Israel was only interested in destroying a single, known nuclear power plant, whereas Iran's nuclear research facilities are believed to be in hidden, underground locations scattered throughout the country. But even if it were technically feasible to destroy them all through bombing, the consequences would be, IMO, very bad. It would not result in Iranian regime change but would cement the authority of the current regime for a long time. It would also have long-term negative consequences for US relationships not only in the Islamic world, but even more importantly, with New Core powers Russia, China, and India, all of which are tied to Iran. Of course, Iran would not take this lying down, and would retaliate with any kind of terrorist scenario it could lay its hands on.
So, would you rather have, (1) an Iran with a future nuclear potential and a bad but fading regime that is likely to fall before the nuclear potential is realized, or (2) an Iran with a delayed nuclear potential and a reinforced bad regime that is ready, willing, and able to do whatever it can think of to hurt us, with major setbacks for our relationships with potential (and essential) New Core allies.
Of course, if the plan is for a more extensive war that will bring down the Iranian regime - an utter fantasy IMO that certainly cannot be accomplished by bombing alone - then I think Dr. Barnett is absolutely correct about the length of the commitment required.
Posted by stuart abrams | November 28, 2007 3:28 PM