Have we not got ourselves a little stuck between a rock and a hard place? We've been so threatening that the only rational response of the Iranian regime may be to develop a nuclear deterrent, but we can't actually do anything militarily.

And, Michael, if you think that invading Iran would be anything like invading Iraq, you are absolutely kidding yourself. Surely you understand that it is not a real option?

Mork, Iran's nuke program is not new. It is not a response to anything we did.

Also, I did not advocate a full invasion of Iran. Just a warning followed by strikes if necessary. Those strikes could escalate on and off until we were satisfied they stopped. The mullahs absolutely cannot win a war with us, and they would eventually stand down.

As a European I hope our softly softly approach may still work. Who knows at the mo', theres alot of sabre rattling from the Iranians at the moment.

It doesn't look promising tho.
I find it interesting that you think that you can stop the Iranians getting nukes.

You have three options it would seem:
1. Diplomatic
2. Indirect Military confrontation
3. Direct Confrontation.

The US Govt seems to distrust 1 (but that might change), 2 would take along time and would involve civil conflict in a potentially nuclear country. Not a pleasant thought.
3 isn't a goer at the mo because you (the US) is not strong enough militarily.
I suspect that three years from now Iran will be a nuclear player.
Ten years from now I suspect there won't be a theocratic govt, there will be an imperfect democracy - much the same as Iraq, irrespective of who is in the WH.
The lesson the Developing World is learning from this Administration is that without a form of WMD (preferably nukes) you are easily manipulated, with WMD - nukes really, you are part of the International Community.
I don't relish the Ayatollahs with nukes, I just doubt our ability to stop it happening.

A likely scenario is that Israel will do something, like they did with the Osirak reactor in Iraq, with tacit U.S. approval, and the U.S. will then backstop them diplomatically.

Also, I did not advocate a full invasion of Iran. Just a warning followed by strikes if necessary. Those strikes could escalate on and off until we were satisfied they stopped. The mullahs absolutely cannot win a war with us, and they would eventually stand down.

Didn't we do something very much like this for about 12 years in Iraq?

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right or wrong solution, although I think you underestimate how much further this kind of policy would inflame the region. Just pointing out that this kind of limited-action military stick-waving sounds a lot like the way we managed the no-fly zone, which didn't seem to do much for Saddam's attitude problem.

Regime change in Iran should be our highest national security priority. We have the military strength to do it, the only question is if we have the will to do it. The Iranians are testing our will and we appear to be failing. Unless this changes fast, America and the world will pay a terrible price.

I don't think we have the will any more. In order to defeat Bush, the Democrats have successfully undermined the war effort. Now Bush is so battered, even he doesn't appear to have the will to do what needs to be done. Obviously, Kerry won't do what needs to be done. The people that will get him elected won't support another war. Kerry's base is just as likely to blame America for terrorism as they are to blame the terrorists. So now it looks like we will have to learn the hard way.

Frankly, I hope Kerry wins the election. The Democrats broke the war effort and I want the inevitable resulting calamity to happen on their watch. They broke it. Let the Democrats be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

See, this is where it all starts to come apart. This is when everybody who supported Bush on Iraq, because they believed it was part of a larger War on Terror, is forced to realize that it was never about anything but Iraq. Those of us who never bought into it saw it long ago, of course. The shifting rationales for the invasion of Iraq; the near-total lack of comparative belligerence w/r/t North Korea - it was all bullshit, and you were bullshitted. You believed in it because you wanted to, and that reflects, in some ways, a nobility of the spirit that neither I nor George W. Bush possess. The man is not an internationalist, and he never has been. He doesn't give a flying fuck about the state of the world outside US borders. You were able to ride along because internationalist "let's save these people from their despotic leader" sentiments (again, admirable, though they'd probably be just as well applied in Africa) coincided, briefly, with Bush's "gonna go git Saddam" idee fixe. This is exactly like what's going on with Andrew Sullivan. You're looking, and thinking "He can't possibly be so totally bankrupt of principles, can he?" The answer is Yes, he can; yes, he is. Bush wanted to invade Iraq; it didn't matter why; and that dovetailed, briefly, with Bermanesque ideals, so all the Bermanites jumped on the running boards. Well, guess what. The ride stops at Iraq. And the Bush administration doesn't give a fuck if you like it or not.

So whatcha gonna do, Michael? Gonna walk past the polling place in November?

Wait till Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election. I bet that's when he's really going to ratchet things up and we'll see some real changes in SA, Syria and Iran. That's why W still has my vote.

There was never anyway that the US was going to invade Iran.

No, Iran will be a job for the UN. But the UN won't be up to it, and the Iranians will get their hands on nukes.

What they then do with them will be the interesting part.

Let's face reality here folks. WE LOST. The mass media, the Left and the politicians have thrown in the towel and the Herd is following. A millionaire film maker is making millions off of Islamist propaganda and the public really is lapping it up. Polls show support for the war is dropping. Terrorists are building bases in Syria and other places. Iran is getting ready to jump in the fray.

This really is Vietnam II (military victory that turns into a political rout).

The anti-war useful idiots were correct. The Iraq War was a mistake. All it did is show how corrupt and spineless the West really is. We could have kept the fraud going a few more years - but now the neocons have forced us to show our hand (which contains two pair at best).

Expect a nuked city in two years. Stock up on canned goods and ammo. If you live in a mid-sized or larger community hope you get lucky.

If you have kids I feel sorry for you. As for me, I am looking at real estate in Alaska.

Later.

"Iran will be a job for the UN."

I just wonder what this means. Also, Michael's little snide comment about Kofi Annan. Do we need to repeat, endlessly, the obvious fact that the "UN" and Kofi Annan are not military players - that Kofi does not have an army at his command, that the UN can do NOTHING without the consent of the permanent members of the Security Council - that the UN is simply the framework of a potential alliance, and Kofi is merely the executive in charge of the bureaucracy?

As to military action in Iraq - sorry to reduce this to schoolyard language, but - you and what army? Can the US military move from the border to Tehran? Sure. Then what?

Oh yeah - that question.....

You think the mullahs are somewhat problematical? Just what do you propose as an alternative, and how do you think that will become established? We see how easy it is in a much smaller country, where 80% of the people were ethnically excluded from power in the old regime and thus generally inclined to be supportive of some kind of regime change. What about Iran - much larger, more homogenous, and where nationalistic opposition to any invaders would be nearly unanimous?
What are the "seat of the pants" estimates for the number of US troops that might be needed?
How many do we have available?
What planet are y'all living on?

And what makes you think that the mullahs cant do these calculations?

Frankly, I hope Kerry wins the election. The Democrats broke the war effort and I want the inevitable resulting calamity to happen on their watch. They broke it. Let the Democrats be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Keep telling yourself that. If you repeat it often enough, you may convince yourself that the Bush administration is absolved of all blame for their mistakes, wishful thinking, deceit, incompetence, ideological inflexibility, and all of the other factors attributable solely to them that contributed to the failures that have occurred.

But you won't convince anyone who isn't already sailing that same river in Egypt.

Accountability, people. That was, at one point, among the foundations of good governance. I would like to think it still is.

Notice how Catsy's premise is that the War has failed. She is saying WE LOST. How many Catsy's are out there?

See you in Alaska. The canned tuna is on me.

An invasion isn't necessary in Iran. As Michael pointed out, a few quick strikes can make things happen diplomatically.

What people who clamor for diplomacy don't take the time to consider is that it requires credible threats of some kind to have an effect. Sanctions certainly have never worked. Invading Iraq gives that credibility. But it loses force when people in the US whine about it.

Blasting the Administration for Iraq only makes it more difficult for a diplomatic solution to be found elsewhere.

Invading Iraq gives that credibility.

That's kind of like saying that stealing a kid's lunch money gives you credibility when you go to rob a bank.

If it's obvious to us how limited our options are, then you can be pretty confident that it is equally obvious to the mullahs.

While we may not have the military capability to invade Iran, we absolutely have the ability to obliterate it. Those who crow over the seeming impotence of the U. S. to prevent the Iran's mullahocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons have confused weakness with forebearance.

Do not for one second suggest that I am recommending this course of action—I am not. I am merely pointing out the obvious.

The Democrats aren’t much interested in stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. They seem to have forgotten everything they ever knew about nuclear proliferation as they harrumphed themselves into a corner over Saddam

That's a far reaching claim considering Kerry spent a week discussing stopping the proliferation of WMD's. There's several speeches and white papers on non-proliferation on his website that he's taken pains to highlight over the last few weeks in speeches. If you missed it on TV it doesn't mean it's not important to Kerry or ir didn't happen. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Diplomacy and sanctions will not stop Iran from obtaining nukes unless everyone is on board. If even one country (who can supply technology) cheats, this approach is doomed. Since there is no reason to believe that everyone will be on board, this is a non-starter.

Limited military strikes may or may not work. In order to work, it must be clear that we are prepared to follow up with full scale invasion. If we blow up a few things and the mullahs flip us off, we have to be able to come back with more.

Wow, I can't believe I'm going to agree with The End is Near. Well, here goes: I pretty much agree. We won't know for sure until November, but the public seems to have turned against the war, and that spells the end of the non-proliferation regime.

The standard of proof for war is now certainty. The standard of performance is perfection. The anti-war crowd has finally hit on the right formula: war is sometimes moral, but only if there are no civilians hurt, no property damaged, no misbehavior among the troops. In other words, anything short of perfection is unacceptable. Any interruption of social services-- even those that didn't exist prior to the war-- is grounds for regret.

I can't think of any war that America has been in that could survive this level of scrutiny, but that's the point, isn't it? It's a de facto pacifism that satisfies American idealism and doesn't, on the face of it, look like appeasement.

Michael, pinpoint strikes are only frightening because they demonstrate a willingness to escalate still further, a strategy that the anti-war crowd has neatly and preemptively vetoed. In the meantime, such strikes get added to the laundry list of 'legitimate grievances' that are used to apologize for terrorism. We've been through this for ten years with Saddam Hussein, to no avail.

The reality is that with military action ruled out, there's virtually nothing we can do to stop Iran's nuclear program. Covert support for Iran's revolutionaries? I would expect that this is already being done, but if it isn't, by all means. What else is there? Sanctions?

It all boils down to what happens in November. If Bush loses, I can't see anyone blaming this on Enron, gay marriage, or the Kyoto Treaty. This November we'll have a referendum on the War in Iraq. If Bush wins, he'll have the political capital to make a credible threat to Iran, one that could at least conceivably be backed up with force.

Hell, even if Kerry wasn't anti-war, even if he stood by his vote for the war, he's still the anti-war candidate. Noone's going to believe an 11th hour appeal to liberal hawks except those hawks themselves, who are understandably reluctant to support a President they otherwise can't stand. And said appeal is still purely theoretical.

I just don't see an anti-war president running on anti-war fervor caring what the recently ousted neocons say. In fact, it could very well lead to Republicans reasserting their Realist tradition and marginalizing the Idealists. Wouldn't that be grand? Isolationism in both parties, pick your flavor. Either way, Iran would be unlikely to consider any threats Kerry might make to be credible.

Sorry, this is a little rant-y, but it pretty much covers everything.

Laddy,

The problem isn't that Kerry doesn't recognize the severity of the issue. It's that he's ruled out any conceivable remedy.

Sanctions? A joke, as Iraq proved. War? His whole election depends on anti-war sentiment. Pinpoint strikes? Possible, but I don't think they'll accomplish more than quelling Iran's domestic dissent. Strongly worded condemnation? Will the mullahs care?

I suppose we could have B-52's drop Kerry's speeches over iran, but France and Germany would probably veto the idea.

What gives a threat some credibility is the sense that the threat can be backed up. The mullahs know that we are highly unlikely to invade. The Iraq example does not give us much credibility, since we havent seemed to make such a good situation out of it.

The attmepts to blame the mess in Iraq on Michael Moore, or the anti-war crowd in general is pretty pathetic. The republicans control the entire US government. There is not a single thing that they have wanted to do that they have been prevented from doing by the opposition. It is simply not the case that troop levels or funding levels or strategic maneuvering has been curtailed or limited by the opposition. They have had free rein to make of the situation what they could. The "whining" of the opposition has had no practical impact on the course of events.

I would suspect that anyone who was truly committed to the aggressive use of American power to remake the world would be extremely upset at the Bush administration for the manner in which they have used that force. If there is any factor that will limit our use of force in the future, it is the example of Iraq - an example wholly the responsibility of the Bush admin.

One debacle at a time, MT. Air strikes only work if military intervention is seen as a real deterrent, and the difficulty we've had in Iraq, fighting a relatively weak foe for the flimsiest of reasons, makes our position nothing more than a bluff.

The argument for Kerry seems to boil down to him having more room to manuever because the left will cut him slack. Of course, the left did not cut LBJ any slack in Vietnam, and that war is the signal event in John Kerry's life.

Sorry, a vote for John Kerry is a vote for ending the war. You can rationalize it all you want, but at the end of the day if Kerry is elected, we'll be headed towards another sanctions fiasco run by the corrupt group at the UN.

If the Democrats had nominated a Joe Lieberman or an Evan Bayh, I could see the argument. John Kerry is from the pacifist wing of the pacifist party. Don't try to convince yourself that you are voting for him because he would have more freedom to wage the war on terror. It's because you have more affinity to him on the cultural issues, because you want to hear the seven dirty words on primetime broadcast TV, because you want the words "Under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance.

"If Bush wins, he'll have the political capital to make a credible threat to Iran, one that could at least conceivably be backed up with force."

Hey Rob, A creditable threat with what? If we needed 300 - 500k troops to mak Iraq work, how many would we need with Iran?

The only bombing that would "work" wouldn't be possible as Pakistan, India, et al are downwind, not to mention the end of any possibility of a democratic Iran.

Bush has left us with few options andd the rest of the world knows it. if you reward incompetence you get more of it.

Michael,

There are always lots of stuff going on that folks are not keeping their eye on. I remember a stage magician demonstrating some of the tricks of the trade. He had a man from the audience come on stage and then held a rolled up silk handkerchief in his hand. Getting the man's attention completely focussed on the handkerchief, he simply tossed it over the guys head to a waiting assistant. As far as the guy was concerned, it simply disappeared. Wonderful demonstration.

I'm not suggesting that there are all sorts of clever manipulations of public attention going on, but I saw the same phenomenon take place in both Afghanistan and Iraq, where it looked for a while like things were bogged down. This is where the media's attention becomes focussed on the obvious things, while ignoring the scale of the true enterprise, where ton's of things are going on.

The same has been happening vs North Korea, I think. I would be very surprised if stuff wasn't going on dealing with Iran. What about the NSA reading the Iranian mail. What were they learning from it, etc.

It's a big world. There are lots of intelligent folks going to work every day and doing stuff. Do you suppose none of this has any effect? I would be very disappointed if nothing was going on, but frankly, I think it is unlikely that this is the case. Please, try to step back and grasp the scale of the world, not to mention the US. It's far vaster than a few blogs or newspaper columnists. Bear in mind that there is always stuff going on outside the center of your attention.

Re Iraq, the facile conclusion that it is a failure, or the occupation is a failure, yada, yada, yada, is just silly. It looks to me like an astounding success viewed just by the numbers. The only problems I see are folks here at home becoming discouraged for no reason at all. It's strange, really. Why all this handwringing and angst?

Did you ever read "An Incident at Krechetovka Station" by Solzhenitzyn. I love his contrasting the central figure, an intellectual slavishly following the war news on the radio and worrying constantly about everything, to the ordinary person who is actually fighting the war, and just keeping on keeping on.

I think that the main problem is that, no matter what Saddam may have wanted to do, planned to do and hoped to do, he was at the time of the invasion an impotent ruler of a busted country. 12 years of sanctions made for a useless army, no major weapons to contend with and a populace who was worn out. Logic dictated that we would be able to take Iraq (even if the clean up isn't pretty).

Iran, on the other hand is not in such a situation, I would be willing to guess that they currently own and make WMD's (the real ones not just a shell here and there). While there is a large minority trying to fight for democracy, the overwhelming majority seem content with their Islamic rule. Ergo, they will all act like the insurgents in Iraq.

I don't fault Bush for not going into Iraq... a man may be brave enough to euthanize a mad dog, but that doesn't mean he's near ready to hop in a den of Lions.

Ratatosk

Tano is right. Folks, its not Kerry and the Dems that are letting Iran get away with building nukes, it's Bush. And the war in Iraq was supposed to scare Iran into not doing this sort of stuff.

I'm still for the war on humitarian grounds, and still hopeful that it MIGHT turn out to help us strategically, and help the Middle East move forward. But what has undermined popular support for interventionism is not Democratic intransigence or rhetoric, but the Administration's arrogance and incompetence.

Good grief.

Listen to yourselves. Especially you, Michael.

What's so epochal about this last week of June? What is new about the the travails of Iran, pivot of the Axis of Evil? Is there anything new happening there? Michael made it a point to highlight the fact that nobody expected the Iranians to deal in good faith with the Euroes, or the U.N.. Later on, he acknowledges that the Dems are less than likely to make the WMD adventures of Iran a priority.

Wondering "where is Bush" on this particular moment strikes me as springing from the same logic vacuum as equatting a lack of Sunday socials, Rotary clubs, and seamless Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq RIGHT THIS SECOND (as has been the case since before the fall of Baghdad for most of the Left) as some de-facto proof of failure.

Has anyone bothered to take a peak at Iraq today? Al Sistani and Butt-boy al Sadr have both identified foreign fighters as the main threat to Iraq's people. Anybody care to ruminate on why Iran released the Brits after a mere two days of PR chain-yanking? Has anyone noticed that while our Marines and soldiers aren't the ones walking the streets in Sadr City or Fallujah we are routinely dropping PGW's on houses in both places daily...with the pro-forma Reuter's reports initially claiming women and children as the primary victims, with the lists of Iranian, Pak, Jordanian, Yemeni, Saudi, etc. dead gomers following hours later to no particular fanfare?

This is a war spanning continents and centuries. It's not going to be won by point victories with sit-com finality ever...and during this political season of sound and fury I think anyone looking at any one day trying to measure strategic progress is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I see one war priority for today: making sure that Iraq transitions to effective self-government the end of next week. The ongoing Tet exercise is just that - an effort to cut the ankles off of the war effort using our own political divisions. Like Tet, the strategy is costing the opposition large numbers of foot soldiers and commanders; losses that they bet will be made worthwhile by a lessening of our resolve.

The bombs and bullets aren't aimed at Iraqis or even our troops. They are intended to remove the only direct and unshakeable opposition to their agenda of jihad, and that target is the Bush administration. HA and MJT both acknowledge that a Kerry administration (and subsequent U.N. inclusion) can be viewed as nothing less than victories for Islamofascism. Tano and Mork haven't changed script since day one. End is Near is a new voice, but also on the same line.

North Korea is a larger problem for China right now than it is for us; any nuclear test on the part of the Norks that isn't an outright fizzle will bring Japan into the nuclear club and that is a complication to further Chinese plans they emphatically don't want to deal with.

The lesson being taught to developing (not a very accurate label, I think) nations is not as characterized by Neil. Neither Iran nor Korea have arrived at some sort of immunity from attack by pursuing WMD, nor have they positioned themselves to prosper economically from their strategy. Iran is doing business with old Europe but at ruinous rates of exchange and the Norks are literally living the life of victims of a psychopath who enjoys undisputed control of a room full of hostages because he's the one with the gun. Not much opportunity for 'development' in either situation, I think.

Time fills. The objectives of the larger war on terror are unchanged; the key is still draining the swamps that breed the barbarians anxious to strap on exploding underwear. Where we are today is not nearly as important as maintaining the resolve to continue the fight. Electing Kerry would be a clear signal that we aren't. That's why Bush will win in November. Polls showing dissatisfaction with Iraq are seldom crafted to show the "why"; you have to look to find that people want more force applied, not less.

Just visited Phil and he has an on-point post for the bottom line here. http://www.intel-dump.com/

I think that Utah gives good evidence of the emptiness of the right-wing strategy. His only recourse to a favorable outcome is to escalate the conflict into one of global, decades long proportions. Sure - we could lay waste to vast swathes of the earth's surface, and stop being so wussy about killing people, and then maybe we can turn much of the world into a 1945 Germany or Japan, and just start over from scratch.

It basically comes down to the essence of the Bush approach - permanent war as a means of securing a peace - perhaps someday, centuries from now. I take this as a good indication that we need to look elsewhere for strategic vision.

Mork
Invading Iraq gives that credibility.
That's kind of like saying that stealing a kid's lunch money gives you credibility when you go to rob a bank.

Steve Smith
fighting a relatively weak foe

Oh, Good grief. Here we go again with why [insert opponent X here] is one tough hombre we can't deal with militarily. We heard it about Gulf War I (where we faced "the fourth largest army in the world"). We heard it about Afghanistan, destroyer of invaders for 2000 years (and don't forget The Brutal Afgan Winter™!). And then we heard it about Iraq -- I laughed my ass off when one commentator said it wouldn't be "a cakewalk like Afghanistan".

Here's the bulletin -- compared to us nearly everybody is "a relatively weak foe". See this and scroll down to "by combat power".

Yes there are plenty of other issues, troop strength, political will and even gasp figuring out what the correct response should be. But implying that the full-scale military option should be off the table is just getting so old.

Here's one for the useless thought experiment file:

Would a strategic set of strikes to neutralize the known nuclear facilities in Iran be enought to tip things? The defeat of the Argentines in the Falklands were enough to overthrow Galtieri. Would this be the straw that sends dislike of the Mulahs into action by the general population?

And if it did, would the BBC cover the student democracy movement this time? Nah...

Sanctions? A joke, as Iraq proved.

A joke, except that it basically worked. Saddam has no significant nuke program and no signficant other WMDs.

Curmudgeon's curmudgeoness is rather misplaced. No one has denied that we could easily get to Tehran. I ask, once again - what then?

We do, categorically, have (on paper) the force to roll the mullahs. Probelm being is that the vast majority of our land forces are tied up in Iraq, and right now, it takes us something like two years to get a divison up to speed from scratch.

That being said, we certainly have enough reserve naval and air power to squish the regime.

Bottom line, could probably destroy the military, but most certainly couldn't put enough boots on the ground to do anything about holding the country.

Tano, simple: we do in Iran exactly what we are doing in Iraq.

Bet that one got a BP rise out of you.

In Iran we'll have the advantage of a real grass-roots opposition to the government. (At least, if Blog Iran can be believed.)

And why do you balk at the idea that a War on Terror could last decades? The Cold War certainly did, and considering the way technology advances, the War on Terror could have stakes just as high within the next few years.

You're paranoid, you're just not the right flavor of paranoid.

Tano -

Bombings, attacks and assassinations in NYC/DC/Turkey/Bali/Africa/Lebanon/Yemen/Thailand/Spain/Argentina/Yemen/Iraq/Iran/India/London/Germany/ and of course Israel over the last half century...and you seem to think there's something new about this being a global conflict?

You think this is an escalation - something that GW Bush manufactured? No. Most emphatically no; he's just the first president to take the fight to the enemy with the stated objective of ending the killing. Years, yes, decades, possibly...but centuries? Your hyperbole is showing, sir.

Strategic vision defined as what? I can't see John Kerry, MoveOn.org's alternative to Howard Dean, as a 'vision' guy. Sorry.

Four more years of Bush will see the end of the Baathist regime in Syria and the emergence of democracy in Iran. Not necessarily through armed invasion - the existence of a successful and free Iraq on their borders will bring more change to the region than any ten divisions we could insert into the mix. What will be the effect on the Pal/Israeli conflict...especially now that Mubarak is nearing his exit? The Norks may or may not be under new management at the end of that time but without customers for WMD they can go ahead and market their second-line export mainstay, GrassHelper, to nations like Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Venezuela that are determined to embrace dictatorship over development.

Carping and naysaying...but no definition of what alternate strategy might prove more effective. That's the hallmark here.

MJT, you made reference to our power..."We have hard power, and we have a lot of it. A little sabre-rattling would go a long way with Iran if we’d try. "...but miss the point that the mullahs predicate their legitamacy on the contention they are the primary leadership against the Great Satan. Their Koranic virtue code and the cultural constraints of their shame culture remove the possibility that they might capitulate that status in the face of anything but direct removal by invasion. They think long-term and depend on our ambivalence as a nation to give them room to operate.

We are not laying waste to any vast swaths of the earth's surface, either, unlike the previous three rounds of international conflict with fundamentalist Islam. There have been no flattened cities, no decimation of populations.

Instead we have place our bet on the proposition that representative democracy has the inherent strength to trump despotism. That our political minority is eager to abandon that progressive, visionary, and courageous strategy is their own affair.

This war may well end in the deaths of nations but the chance that it will end up that way are increased, not diminished, if we abandon the effort to make the current strategy work before any reasonable time has passed. History is pretty clear on the results of half-measures at the strategic level.

BRD,
yeah, well exactly.
So, what is strategic context for even discussing the issue?

Unless someone wants to make the case that taking out the regime and then letting the resulting situation develop as it will, would lead to something better. I'm all ears - I can certainly imagine the result being even worse - lets hear the case that it might be better....

Picking on Tano, part 2:

What gives a threat some credibility is the sense that the threat can be backed up. The mullahs know that we are highly unlikely to invade. The Iraq example does not give us much credibility, since we havent seemed to make such a good situation out of it.

What you're assuming is that the Mullahs give a rat's ass about the "chaos" that you see in Iraq. What they probably cared about was Saddam being pulled out of his hole, and the autopsies of Hussein: The Next Generation.

Libya's Qadhafi became a new man after those events.

Oberon says the sanctions were working. What a joke. Where to begin? Oil-for-Palaces scandal? Propaganda about how we were starving Iraq's children? Endless No-Fly Zone patrols? Unknown dangers of Saddam's abilities/plans?

I agree with Utah's comments for the most part. Why the hand-wringing MJT? Despite the left's despicable yet predicatable effort to paint one of the quickest and most decisive military victories in the history of the world as a defeat for their hated country, the plan is going according to schedule. Stay the course and quit letting the dishonest chicken littles turn victory into defeat for the sake of petty politics.

Saddam Hussein will never threaten this country again, people. Every thing else is gravy.

Mark,
"What you're assuming is that the Mullahs give a rat's ass about the "chaos" that you see in Iraq."

Huh?
Dont know what you mean by that. My point was that they can see quite plainly what our ability is to control the ground in a country like Iraq. And I suspect it gives them comfort to extrapolate what our capabilities would be to try that in Iran.

Stay the course and quit letting the dishonest chicken littles turn victory into defeat for the sake of petty politics.

So if you say one fairly negative thing about Iraq or Bush's foreign policy, you're automatically a bed-wetting liberal already waiting in line to vote for Kerry?

Let me know when this "election year" is over with. The anti-war left is just as guilty; this polarization makes any sort of discourse impossible.

Sigh...

The real problem is that we still "don't get it". I think everyone wants to think Sept. 11 was an abberation, like an earthquake that comes and goes. It isn't it is a taste of the future and only a small prelude to the horrors that will come unless we act.

But our political culture is incapable of action now. All my friends are desperate to have the peace of the 1990's back. We're sick of war, Abu Ghraib, missing WMD's, the CPA, etc. All the reporting makes the whole Iraq War seem like a complete farce. Why face the reality of nuclear Iran, unstable Pakistan, and an imploding Saudi Arabia, when we can focus on Rummy's memos or Cheney's Halliburton's schemes?

But the WMD's, the terrorists, the Islamic Fascism is still there, and the threat is still gathering. Will it take a nuclear bomb going off for us to wake up? And then what?

"Will it take a nuclear bomb going off for us to wake up?"

Leftism of the pacifist variety is so infused with its own sense of moral superiority that it has become almost a religious force. A nuclear bomb atomizing even New York City wouldn't make a dent in that kind of mentality. It would, however, probably cause the rest of the nation to wake up. But it is unclear to what extent the left would refuse to go along with a situation of Total War which existed during WW2. They might get violent, ala Seattle.

"And then what?"

Assuming that the country can deal with the leftism-as-religion brigade, we will pursue the enemy to the ends of the earth, with all forces at out option. As for the left, they might be consigned to history as were the Civil War's successionists.

I wonder how things would have worked out if the US and UN coalition had concentrated on Afghanistan.

While democracy there would probably take a long, long time to implement as part of the culture, a universal education program, a healthy economy, a growing middle class, and political stability may well have provided much of the groundwork necessary.

If a fraction of the money that has been burned up in Iraq was used for decent housing, agriculture, and infrastructure in Afghanistan, and the burden was borne by a coalition of nations, much of the US's military would still be providing a significant deterrant to the kind of testing of nuclear limits we're seeing in Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

On top of that, there would be a much more positive example of what liberal democracy can mean in the region, instead of one nation actually wishing for the good old days when a dictator ensured that people were not being kidnapped or murdered in the streets, and a host of other dictatorships who can point to that nation and say "See, at least we keep you from being killed in your beds by criminals." And we have global diplomacy in such disarray that it's going to take years to patch it together again.

I'm reasonably sure that both the mullahs and the terrorists are hoping for another four years of Bush, but to tell you the truth, I don't think it's going to make a lot of difference if Kerry gets in, as things are FUBAR beyond belief at this point.

By the way, Michael, I predict 250+ comments to this post of yours.

Tano, think like a despot:

"I don't want to be pulled out of a hole in the ground by a bunch of Marines from West Virginia."

Our ability to "hold" Iraq or Iran may not be what worries your average despot. Our ability to capture or kill their own private asses might.

In the end, all politics is personal.

>>>"The Democrats broke the war effort and I want the inevitable resulting calamity to happen on their watch. They broke it. Let the Democrats be held accountable for the consequences of their actions."

The Democrats didn't break squat. They wished it yes, but wishing isn't doing. The invasion was flawless, and the men lost from then to handover is only 800 men. A fraction of what even the most optimistic planners thought it would take to oust Saddam. So what exactly is "broken"? Nothing, unless you choose to believe the incredibly lopsided coverage of the Liberal media, which I don't. Handover is coming in days, our troops will be safe in their bases. The terrorists will be crushed by the Iraqis themselves, and next year a free election. What exactly is "broken"? Don't believe the bullshit hype of the Left. Iraq has been immensely successful.

"While democracy there would probably take a long, long time to implement as part of the culture, a universal education program, a healthy economy, a growing middle class, and political stability may well have provided much of the groundwork necessary."

Meanwhile in this fictional universe....BOOM! There goes NYC!

Well that will probably happen anyway....but those are the stakes.

On the table is 1 Nuked US City.

I fear that we hold nothing in our hand, that the Left has succeeded in destroying the West and...

...OBL and the rest of the Terrorist Movement are ready to call our bluff.

BOOM!

Meanwhile in this fictional universe....BOOM! There goes NYC!

Except that in the real world, Hussein had no nuclear weapons to give terrorist. Terrorists are more likely to get nukes from Pakistan, North Korea, or, heaven help us, Iran if they develop them.

I agree that our inability to respond is a result of internal opposition, not a lack of military power.

But I question the Terror War hawks won’t sit idly by and assume a problem like this will be taken care of. As I recall, the right screamed about everything Clinton wanted to do, just because Clinton wanted to do it. Now the left screams about everything Bush does, and I don't see it stopping if Kerry is elected.

Bush still offers a better credible threat of force than Kerry.

We or Israel will be bombing Iranian sites within six months.

I agree that our inability to respond is a result of internal opposition, not a lack of military power.

Wow, that's some impressive fingerpointing. I'd say that the inability to respond is more because the military is completely bogged down, rather than the treasonous liberals complaining about things.

"We or Israel will be bombing Iranian sites within six months."

True. I suspect it'll happen after the election. If Bush is ousted, he'll do it as a lame duck, because he'll want to hurry up and make sure Iran can't do squat while John Kerry is president.

"Except that in the real world, Hussein had no nuclear weapons to give terrorist."

So what? He was supporting the Terrorist MOVEMENT. Other regimes were too. They were betting that we didn't have the will to resist. Iraq was supposed to be that WILL.

I say that past tense, since they now know that Micheal Moore is believed by the American public - Americans have no will.

This is Grand Strategy. Before you dismiss Bush it would be wise to understand his aims, instead of just playing political bullshit games. We are talking about the lives of thousands here (or do you dismiss the threat of a destroyed US city???)

I'd say that the inability to respond is more because the military is completely bogged down..."

Are you delusional? Read the news, for once:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040622-113720-3352r.htm

"The Army's powerful 1st Armored Division is proclaiming victory over Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr's marauding militia that just a month ago seemed on the verge of conquering southern Iraq.
The Germany-based division defeated the militia with a mix of American firepower and money paid to informants. Officers today say "Operation Iron Saber" will go down in military history books as one of the most important battles in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
"I've got to think this was a watershed operation in terms of how to do things as part of a counterinsurgency," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a West Point graduate and one of two 1st Armored assistant division commanders, in an interview last week as he moved around southern Iraq. "We happened to design a campaign that did very well against this militia."
When the division got word April 8 that Sheik al-Sadr's uprising meant most 1st Armored soldiers would stay and fight, rather than going home as scheduled, it touched off a series of remarkable military maneuvers.
Soldiers, tanks and helicopters at a port in Kuwait reversed course, rushing back inside Iraq to battle the Shi'ite cleric's 10,000-strong army. Within days, a four-tank squadron was rumbling toward the eastern city of Kut. And within hours of arriving, Lt. Col. Mark Calvert and his squadron had cleared the town's government buildings of the sheik's so-called Mahdi's Army."

++UG

Except that in the real world, Hussein had no nuclear weapons to give terrorist. Terrorists are more likely to get nukes from Pakistan, North Korea, or, heaven help us, Iran if they develop them.

And in your real world, while we were busy turning Afghanistan into Oregon, the terrorists have set up camp in Syria and bought the damn bomb anyway.

We have a rates problem here folks. How fast can rogue countries like North Korea and Iran ramp up to suitcase nukes, versus how quickly can we gut terrorist support structures.

Tick tock.

You know, I read lines like this,

he Democrats aren’t much interested in stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

and have to wonder what planet I'm on. Opposition to the Iraq war is hardly evidence of disinterest. Democratic politicians, like their Republican counterparts, have always taken nonproliferation seriously. They have since 1945. They did during the Clinton administration (need I remind anyone of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? The Republicans in the Senate quashed the ratification of an international agreement assented to by the whole world and already in principle observed by the U.S. I can't argue with the currently fashionable histrionic opposition to internationalism. Suffice to say, international agreements since at least the NPT in 1968 have served as an international framework for controlling the spread on WMD Some of Reagan's greatest moments were acheived in the historic arms control agreements he negotiated with the USSR).

Iraq is one example of many, many dangerous proliferation threats in the world. Iran, yes, and Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Russia and former Soviet Republics. Fissle material and ICBM componentry may be available on the open market now from many different sources ... especailly nonstate actors feeding off decaying Soviet systems.

So why isn't everyone getting ready to invade Iran? Well, how could we? We're stretched thin as it is. And as for sabre-rattlinig? With what military credibility? Iran surely knows that we're in no position to invade and occupy another country. And they know just as well how airstrikes would effect the Shiites in Iraq and our prospects for peace. North Korea didn't much flinch at the threats we through their way and here we are back at the negotiating table.

And in your real world, while we were busy turning Afghanistan into Oregon, the terrorists have set up camp in Syria and bought the damn bomb anyway.

Why would terrorists not be able to set up camp right now in Iraq, much less Syria?

I think it is amusing that the Leftist talking points are now that Bush should have dismissed their opinions completely.

In other words, he should have just ignored the media and critics and did his thing. Of course, he would have been branded a Hitler Part 2. Oh wait, they did that anyway!

So I agree. Bush is an idiot for listening to his critics.

So welcome to Tet Part 2. A military victory turned into a defeat by the media, Left and idiot public and the idiots on the pro-war side who game them the time of day.

Sydney, al-Sadr turned his militia loose because he was denied a role in Iraqi politics because he's too extreme, and because he there was an arrest warrant out for him.

He's now being told he can have his political party, and the authorities have assured him that they won't execute their warrant. In exchange, he called off his militia. He's gone from from being a marginal extremist before the insurgency to the second most popular figure in Iraq.

And you think that is a good example of how well the US military is doing in Iraq?

Acutally I agree with the anti-war people here.

We should withdraw and put the US Military on every street corner. Admit we are weak and wait to get smacked.

Martial Law vs. nuked city. Take your pick. Cause victory ain't happening.

We are talking about the lives of thousands here (or do you dismiss the threat of a destroyed US city???)

Absolutely not, I believe that an attack on a western (not just US) city by terrorists, Islamic fundamentaists or not, is a very real and dangerous threat. That is why I'm so thoroughly pissed at the Bush administration for doings such a crappy job at dealing with terrorism and nuclear prolifiration among rough nations.

As to "spread thin":

Of the 34 combat brigades and Armored Cavalry Regiments in the US Army's active component, some 15 are currently deployed (including the two from the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea), in the process of rotating to and from deployments or having just returned from deployment. Of the two Armored Cavalry Regiments both are also deployed (it should be noted that press and Army officials tend to lump the ACR's in with the Brigades when counting total combat brigades).

[material, including charts, ommitted]

Of the Army National Guards 37 combat brigades 6 are currently deployed with 2 more slated to deploy in the near future. The National Guard has one Armored Cavalry Regiment, it is not deployed but it has been alerted for a possible deployment.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

Don't know what percentage of the Marines are deployed, but they're always "good to go" if things get tense with Iran.

One presumes the Mullahs also know how to use Google.

Wow, many typos in that last post, especially "rough nations" when I meant "rogue nations". Rogue nations are, of course, often rough, but the inverse is not always true.

++UG:

Why would terrorists not be able to set up camp right now in Iraq, much less Syria?

Besides for common sense? Nothing. But I'd rather have them wasting time and energy avoiding capture than spending it getting ready for the Next Big Thing. The rates aspect of the problem again.

double-plus, I really don't know if the Iraqi government has come to a political agreement with Sadar. The point is that the article entirely refutes your "bogged down" description of the US Military, which apparrently has successfully adopted a revolutionary way to deal with counter-insurgencies.

What would you have the US Military do otherwise?

OFF TOPIC!

In case you've not heard, there is a serious case of infected web servers across the Internet, simply surfing the web could cause you to be infected.

Make sure you update your virus scan.

This vulnerability (like so many) exists only if you're using Internet Explorer as your web browser. IE has an extremely large number of existing holes, and this one simply adds fuel to the fire. Until Microsoft releases a patch, surfing the web with IE is dangerous.

As a temporary solution, I recommend checking out The Mozilla Project it's based on a complete rewrite of the old Netscape browser and seems very stable to me (I'm running it on Windows 2000, 98, ME, XP and Linux).

The Mozilla project has two browser options: Mozilla 1.7 which includes the browser, mail client, html editor etc etc etc, OR Firefox 0.9 Technology Preview, which is simply the stand alone browser.

The Firefox browser is very small (easy download), its a quick install and it will import all of your IE bookmarks, history etc.

Surfing the web with IE, unpatched is very dangerous. I may disagree with some of the politics people here have, but I'd just as soon none of you get infected :)

OK, end of Off Topic, back to bashing each other.

That's my point. The US military has its hands full right now, and the rest of the world is sulking, so who exactly are terrorist working so hard to avoid capture by? Seems to me that if the world's number two terrorist is operating freely in occupied Iraq, the rest elsewhere are having parades down Main St.

Thanks David -- Iraq is well on a path towards fantastic success, compared to all reasonable expectations. The mullahs are racing to get nukes before Iraq has elections ... because the day AFTER Iraq has elections, all 130 000 battle experienced US troops will be in a country on Iran's border, and could get new orders...

The US Army, at a cost of less than 10 000 US casualties, can militarily effect regime change in Tehran. If the Boss orders it.

Should he? Yes. [when? not sure; prolly best to submit a UN resolution condemning Iran for violating its prior treaty commitments.]

Will he? Prolly not until after Nov.

Almost certainly after terrorists get nukes from the mullahs, and one explodes somewhere--but then it's "too late". For those 10 000 - 10 000 000 who die, in a future WMD terrorist attack, because the US President doesn't pre-empt it. Even Kerry would then attack Iran, and Saudi Arabia afterward, so I'm not worried about Western Civ and peaceful capitalism. I AM worried about those victims, though.

Blaming Bush for Iran continuing its nuke program is horribly dishonest. Bush pre-emptively invading Iraq was the only reasonable way to deter Iran before significant military action against Iran, and deterence doesn't always work.

From Kerry's site, his plan:
to undertake to lead the most global, comprehensive effort in history to deal with proliferation
in other words, talk until after Iran gets nukes; until after terrorists use them...

Michael JT, please consider Anne's critique:
reasonable people can admit that the administration has made serious mistakes, presided over a terrible scandal, and come off as so ideologically driven

Serious mistakes? Where? Really. I see terrible publicity, but regime change in Iraq was great, they're about to be sovereign, on track to be democratic; the US economy is great. What big mistake? That he doesn't walk on water? That Iraq after a year isn't as successfully democratic as Japan after a decade?

Terrible scandal? You mean Abu/ occupation prison treatment is a terrible scandal? I call it a small scandal. Over 100 Iraqi deaths in prisons is a big scandal. Over 1000 Iraqi deaths is terrible. Over 10 is a real, definite scandal; there's maybe been 37? Bush-hate noise, and noise, and noise. What's the standard? 300 000 bodies in Saddam's graves (doesn't count). How about US prison rapes, and pot smokers who get infected by AIDS in Mass. prison? I think there's more, and it's worse than Iraq. How about the 2 Americans murdered on April 17 by the UN (Kerry's pals)? THAT's worse than Abu. Abu is bad, real, but way way overblown.

Ideologically driven? What, against gay marriage? So is Kerry. Bush in favor of an amendment (unlikely to be voted on), instead of merely a law like Clinton? Well, that is forced by the judges, Bush didn't ask for it. Bush stopping partial birth abortions was great (overturned by Leftist judges); nobody stopped supporting him for that.
Bush's huge spending increase? If anything, that is counter-ideological, therefore more centrist. And Bush don' talk s' well, aint able ta ahticulate or apologize enuff. Noise.

Photos & Bush-hate press noise are dominating serious evaluations of his policy results. Yeah, it seems he has a tight inner group, and you're either in or out. I don't like that, and it leads to a lot of bad press, but it's the results that should matter the most. Check results -- and be honest about the comparison standard.

Sydney, have you seen the (a href="http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/157653-3024-010.html">news from Iraq in the last two days? No matter how innovative the tactics are, nor how well-trained and equipped they are, no matter how good the quality of soldier, Iraq is a mess, and the military has its hands completely full.

Dammit people, Preview is your friend. Here's that link properly hrefed, sorry about that.

I agree that our inability to respond is a result of internal opposition, not a lack of military power.

I admit it. All problems in Iraq are my fault. I'm sorry.

Iraq is well on a path towards fantastic success

Whoops. Disregard my previous post. There are no signficant problems in Iraq.

Oberon I admit it. All problems in Iraq are my fault. I'm sorry.

Okay, that made coffee come out my nose.

Whoops. Disregard my previous post. There are no signficant problems in Iraq.

Stop it, man, you're killing me here.

Chuck and tmjUtah,

Thank you both. Well done.

Tano,

The war is already of global proportions and decades old. The only difference in the past 2.5 years is that we've decided to fight rather than try to pretend it isn't happening. History did not start yesterday (or even the day the current presisent took office or on 9/11/2001). History will not come to a nice, tidy end anytime soon.

There is much going on in the world that doesn't make the nightly news or our beloved blogs. The only pragamatic limit to the ability of the US to escalate is our willingness to inflict and tolerate pain. We can inflict unlimited pain, we have a low threshold of tolerance.

I find it amazing that so many people believe we've run out of options, have accomplished nothing, and painted ourselves in a corner.

Let's see here...

Taliban gone - check
Saddam gone - check
Libya playing nice - check
Pakistani Father of Nukes no longer plying his wares on the black market - check

What's that leave us...

NK - gee, they haven't said boo lately. Any chance that's got anything to do with Ill Kim's trip to the Chinese woodshed? Maybe it was that 'sploding trainful of Syrian misslesitters that rattled the windows on his Wild Wild West inspired private train. Nah, couldn't be. There couldn't be a general or ten over there in NK about now saying something like, "Yo, Kimmie, Boobie, Sweatheart, Boss! Give it a rest here, willya. That saber rattlin' is makin' the boys all nervous and they ain't eatin' so good no more and nervous people spend more calories and they get hungry and start thinkin more about how they ain't eatin so go no more, and, well, you get the picture. Put that thing away for a while, willya."

Syria & Iran... hmmm... gee, they decided not to go down without some form of a fight. Wow. Imagine that. There's hard proof of total failure.

TO: Teheran
FROM: Washington, DC
DATE: 11/3/04

Dear Mistah Mullah,

I know where you get your money (please see enclosed photos of petro facilities). Perhaps you do not believe, despite recent demonstrations, in the efficacy of PGBs. A demonstration can be arranged at your convenience if you like, ours if you insist.

Have a nice day,
Colin.

TO: Damascus
FROM: Washington, DC
DATE: 11/3/04

Dear Princeling,

I mentioned in my last letter that there were some matters of concern I'd like you to give attention to. We've both been busy so I can't fault you for failing to address those concerns - I've been busy myself.

I am, however, wrapping up some business that has kept me occupied and find I have an opening in my schedule quite soon. I can make it a bit sooner if necessary.

Enclosed please find photos of your petro facilites. Geeze, they must rake in the dollars for you, heh? How long does it take to shut all that down? I'll have to ask Dick, he knows about that stuff. He was in the business, or so they say.

If I don't hear from you soon I'll have my people give your people a holler.

All the best,
Rummy

D-p-U:

Well, it's not like arguing was going to change their minds. Might as well poke a little fun. (Violating decency rules of posting, I'll point out there's even more sarcasm on my blog today.)

Going back to MJT's post:

We have more than two options here. It’s not a choice between entrusting the safety of the world to Jacques Chirac on the one hand and ramping up for a full-bore invasion and occupation on the other.

Exactly. I can't understand why some people think the only options in any given situation are (i) do nothing or (ii) launch full-scale invasion. We have plenty of options against Iran, and I expect Bush will start taking action.

The no-fly zones, bombings, and other sanctions against Saddam were hardly perfect, but Hussein in fact did not have significant WMDs. (Hell, I thought Bush's plan was to act so eager to invade Iraq that Hussein would allow inspectors to return, and we wouldn't have to invade. Silly me.)

PULL!

From double-plus-ungood:

"I wonder how things would have worked out if the US and UN coalition had concentrated on Afghanistan...While democracy there would probably take a long, long time to implement as part of the culture, a universal education program, a healthy economy, a growing middle class, and political stability may well have provided much of the groundwork necessary."

Afghanistan is a medieval country with no discernable, direct, effect on the economy or politics of its neighbors much less the world. The impetus for war with that regime was the direct hosting and support by the Taliban for OBL and his crew - meaning we had traditional/conventional precedent for action. As a steppingstone in the path to draining swamps, the impact of democracy there is highly laudable on the emotional/humanitarian front (most certainly for the Afghanis themselves) but in the strategic sense cannot have near the impact that accomplishing the same in Iraq will provide. Rule of law, a vibrant economy based on agriculture, energy, and yes, intellectual exports, to the world at large will make the neighbors of Iraq starkly aware of the failure endemic in their societies, maybe even to the point that they may finally look within instead of at the existence of the joooooooos or the infidel as reasons they are living in Earth's subbasement. Couple the example of a sovereign, free and progressive Iraq smack in the center of the swamp with an unquestioned certainty that U.S. force will be employed when and where we find Islamofascism existing or supported over the long term, and not just when politically expedient for whatever transitory political equation exists at home, and you have the impetus for strategic change.

POWDER! That's why stopping for an intermission in Afghanistan didn't make much sense.

Just an aside on the realities of the war:

Read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu before executing the Bush administration's treatment of the mullahs out of hand. The goal of war is to remove the enemy's capability to fight. In the current arena we are being asked to believe that abscence of peace is somehow a measure of failure. Some, like Michael in the post he put up today, question why we have not yet used direct force in the face of evidence that Tehran is on the verge of manufacturing nukes. The same has been said regarding North Korea. I would point out that there used to be three members of the axis of evil: two of them were judged to be unacceptable threats and dealt with directly. The remaining two members must have a pretty clear understanding of what consequences a direct strike traceable to them will have on their assets in terms of our subsequent actions. In the case of the mullahs they have no hope of surviving a direct conventional, much less nuclear exchange, so they race to destabilize Iraq and play interest games with europe in the hope we will just walk away. The insanity and barbarism that drives their foot soldiers is not nearly as prevalent among the dictators themselves - their interest is focused mainly on survival and power. They will foment and intrigue as they have for decades but the day they are connected with proliferation of nukes to terror, their string will run out. The push on our side is to bring the Iranian people to the point where they will free themselves. How many millions of people in Iran live as voiceless victims of the mullahocracy? Enough to the extent that the enforcement arm of the mullahs is comprised mainly of foreign fanatics. They have domestic pressures that make our tiff between right and left look comical. Both sides know that. There may well be less profit in preemption with the mullahs as long as the possibility exists we can achieve our ends through time and pressure. That's a gutsy call to make, by the way.

We can operate in that environment for the present, regarding Iran. Turn the page to North Korea and there are critical differences that we must acknowledge and make allowance for. First and foremost, all executive power there is embodied in one man - Kim Il Sung - and that man is playing solitaire not with a short deck, but without cards at all. My above metaphor for the hostage taker ruling by dint of having the immediate option of shooting the hostages applies in spades. The people of North Korea are (if possible) more thoroughly brainwashed and hopeless than any islamofascist population. The city of Seoul is one fire command away from receiving literally tens of thousands of tube artillery rounds and rockets from hardened positions built by the Norks since the 1950's. Our recent move to place our ROK - based troops beyond the forty-kilometer indirect fire envelope south of the DMZ changed those soldiers, airmen, and Marines from being speedbumps into a dead-bang insurmountable obstacle to any North Korean attempt to blitz their way to the bottom of the peninsuela. Does that in any way make the ROK safe? No, because Kim is a psychotic moonbat in charge of way too many guns and slave soldiers...but maybe his generals will understand that there is no future in following his orders and do the right thing with a pistol before the issue comes to that.

The Chinese want North Korea's continued existence as an economic basket case to continue. They can barely keep ahead of the economic/political pressures of Hong Kong and their own artificial capitalism zones on their control of the country as it is. A free, entrepeneurial unified Korea occupying a huge stretch of border is emphatically NOT in their interest.

Have I sounded the clarion for scorched earth campaigns? I see no profit in piling up bodies if they don't belong to combatants or their political masters. The crux of the Bush doctrine is that the threat we face is the product of regimes or philosophies unaccountable to their populations and incompatible with civilized coexistence.

You cannot negotiate with an enemy whose only victory condition is to see you dead.

We are fighting the cultural inertia of generations...even epochs...and that inertia will be overcome only after enough people in that part of the world see the advantages change will bring. I think there is some relevance to pointing out that the Civil Rights and Voting Acts here weren't the equivalent of flipping a switch and changing every southern white male into Rainbow Coalition member. The National Guard and even federal troops were required to make critical events like the intergration of schools and universal franchise happen. Decades later the last vestiges of institutional racism seem to be concentrated in government and educational institutions...but at the street level, strangely enough, most of us seem to measure our neighbors by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Great work takes time. Until I see an alternative strategy proposed - one that rejects toleration of groups or regimes that actively target American lives and interests - I'll support the current doctrine.

Sorry for the length.

The islamists admit they want it all, the whole ball of wax. Some people get it, and some don't.

As a lifelong democrat, I dread what will happen if John Kerry is elected. John Kerry doesn't get it, and his backers don't get it.

I can easily see New York City, DC, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago destroyed in a Kerry presidency.

Oops - technical correction to my last:

"I would point out that there used to be three members of the axis of evil: two of them were judged to be unacceptable threats and dealt with directly."

Should read instead ...."one of them was judged to be an unacceptable threat and dealt with directly."

The price tag for engaging in direct confrontation with us is public knowledge, so for now the remaining axis members will fight the covert war as best they can.

TmhUtah: Read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu before executing the Bush administration's treatment of the mullahs out of hand.

Oof. That statement probably had both these guys spinning so hard in their graves that we could generate power from it.

No one starts a war - or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so - without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.
- Karl von Clausewitz

A government should not mobilize its army out of anger ... Act when it is beneficial; desist when it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to its existence, and the dead cannot be brought back to life.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Is it just me, or does Totten attract an unusually large number of people who claim to be committed Democrats that are completely petrified of voting for a Democrat?

Is it just me, or does Totten attract an unusually large number of people who claim to be committed Democrats that are completely petrified of voting for a Democrat?

I assumed that we were all former liberals, leftists, or Democrats who had seen the light and would, of course, never think of giving the terrorists the green light by voting for Kerry.

Me, I can't vote for Bush because I'm Canadian, dammit.

>>>"Sydney, al-Sadr turned his militia loose because he was denied a role in Iraqi politics because he's too extreme, and because he there was an arrest warrant out for him."

double,

What lovely irony to hear Leftists fault Bush for letting Al-Sadr off the hook, while at the same time they fault him for going after Saddam. Straight Bush hatred often leads to such oxymoronic results. Get your story straight will ya.

Oberon: Is it just me, or does Totten attract an unusually large number of people who claim to be committed Democrats that are completely petrified of voting for a Democrat?

It's probably not you. It's probably me. That's where I've been lately myself, and it's the audience I sought.

david What lovely irony to hear Leftists fault Bush for letting Al-Sadr off the hook, while at the same time they fault him for going after Saddam. Straight Bush hatred often leads to such oxymoronic results. Get your story straight will ya.

David, you're reading too fast.

(a) I never faulted Bush for letting Al-Sadr off the hook.

(b) letting al-Sadr off the hook was probably the best option at the time, as I believe I posted on MJT's comment section at the time. Hawks were outraged at my suggestion, yet now claim that this very outcome is a victory.

© the big error was marginalizing al-Sadr instead of co-opting him.

(d) I was opinionating that the military fight against the Sadrist militia was probably not the best example of how well the military was doing, as they were unable to achieve a military victory against a rag-tag army of ghetto kids with guns without causing a more severe uprising.

(e) I don't hate Bush, I just think that he's not doing a particulary good job, and that annoys me, as we're facing a serious crisis that needs competent leadership.

double-plus-ungood -

Thanks for making my point.

We did not shoot from the hip at the Taliban, the obvious first target in this war, in spite of having ample resources to inflict substantial injury by merely bombing what passed for government or military facilities. We did not arrive in Afghanistan without an end objective defined. The process was intended to eject the Taliban and leave in its place the first democratic government in the swamp. The effort is ongoing.

Ditto for Iraq. Fourteen months of debate, after twelve years of babysitting? On a purely briefcase/lawyers arguing over the check level, Hussein should have been removed sometime in the nineties for not complying with the resolutions ending the first Gulf War. The armistice we signed halted hostilities based on his compliance with the applicable U.N. resolution...which condition became farce early out of the gate.

"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."

State of the Union Address, January 20 2004.

Once again, I reject the absence of peace as a meme for failure. There can be no published schedule of times and dates for success because such a thing is an absurdity when applied to a battlefield, which is where we have stood since 9/11.

Carry on.

It's probably not you. It's probably me. That's where I've been lately myself, and it's the audience I sought.

Good point.

BTW, did you try the right-wing blog-generator I posted in your comments a couple of days ago?

I wish Bush was doing a better job against the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. As a democrat I am unhappy with many of his domestic policies.

But I know in my heart that John Kerry would probably create a catastrophe from which our society might not ever recover. John Kerry is a man who will never understand the deadly threat, and so could not possibly take the proper actions to protect the nation.

>>>"the big error was marginalizing al-Sadr instead of co-opting him."

double,

ok, maybe I was reading too fast. But if you don't hate Bush then stop trying to put the worst possible spin on it; it was a Bush victory.

But why do you assume the U.S. wasn't trying to co-opt him? It appears to me that previous to his licking at the hands of our marines he was un-cooptable. Now, because of the marines and the help of Shiite leaders, he's more willing to be co-opted. The carrot didn't work, the stick did.

TU: The process was intended to eject the Taliban and leave in its place the first democratic government in the swamp. The effort is ongoing.

That "ongoing" is certain a spin-loaded word. Forgive me if my assessment isn't the same as yours, but I really believe that the effort has been largely abandoned.

TU: Ditto for Iraq.

Hmm. Latest polls indicate that over 90% of Iraqis now see US troops as occupiers. Somewhere about 35% indiate that they would like Hussein back in power. The newly appointed Prime Minister is a former terrorist, and was, before that, involved with Hussein's death squads. Assuming he isn't blown up by his former coworkers, one can assume that he'll probably be a strongman, and that much of the popular support he's now receiving is based on the fact that so many Iraqis are sick of the crime and violence that they'd be happy with Adolph Hitler running the show if it meant a return to stability and the departure of foreign troops. Which means that if he decides to manipulate things so that he or his cronies stay in power, most Iraqis will probably not object too loudly.

I think that there are so many ways to derail the democracy effort, and so many things have to line up precisely for it work, and so many players have a vested interest in making it break, that I think the trend shows toward a deeping of the swamp, not a draining of it.

So, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I agree with above. Hang out a white flag. Let's surrander while we can. We can afford to lose a city or two.

>> I assumed that we were all former liberals, leftists, or Democrats who had seen the light and would, of course, never think of giving the terrorists the green light by voting for Kerry.

I can't speak for the rest, but...

Not a former liberal. An active liberal in the "classic" Scottish enlightment strain, don't care much for the French strain (even before I wrote France off I didn't think much of their strain of classical liberalism)

Never a leftist.

Once upon a time a bonafide Independant who voted for at least as many Dems as Republicans. Took me a long time but I came to the conclusion that the Democratic party is a vile, corrupt, loathesome institution (its possible some of their candidates are decent human beings, but so what) and I will not vote for a Dem until and their either dies or changes (and convincing me its changed will probably take longer than I have to live). You don't even want to see the length of the post I'd have to make to give you all the reasons I came to be an anti-Democrat.

My disgust for the Dem party is so deep that I won't even pretend that I can judge completely honestly whether I'd consider Kerry if he weren't the Dem candidate. But when I try my best to be as "fair" as I can be, he sure seems to be a product of that loathesome machine.

So Kerry would never get my vote because I will not for a Democrat, even if weren't a Democrat he sure walks, talks, and quacks like one, and even if it weren't for that he's a UN-pandering Europhile so he wouldn't get my vote for that. And even after all THAT, I wouldn't vote for him because he just doesn't get it - he still thinks the Islamofascists can be stopped by police and courts. He's a terrible candidate. How he got to be the "apparent nominee" for ANY party (even the insane Dems) is beyond my comprehension. I still suspect the Dems will find a Toricelli option.

Timing is everything.

I'll not be using any more of your bandwidth today, Michael. Excellent discussion.

But why do you assume the U.S. wasn't trying to co-opt him? It appears to me that previous to his licking at the hands of our marines he was un-cooptable.

I'm not assuming anything, I've been following what he's been doing since January via Juan Cole's blog. He initially had involvement with the IGC, but there was some political games played, he began to make some demands, and then he was frozen out. He made a couple of fiery speeches about the legitimacy of the governing council, made some demands that certain people quit and be replaced by elected officials, and Bremer decided to play hardball instead of finding a way to include him in the political process.

So now he has pretty much what he originally wanted, except with a great deal more public support.

Hi Michael,

and I sense that you are equally petrified of voting for a Republican ;)

++UG

"So now [Sadr] has pretty much what he originally wanted, except with a great deal more public support."

Except that a lot of people who were all for the armed creation of a Mullahcracy (sp?) are now dead, and al-Sadr no longer advocates that philosophy of government.

"Yeah, we're behind you 100%, unless people are shooting at you." That's what I call support.

Basically, a decisive blow against the Iranian model in Iraq.

Worth noting.

++UG quoted from the German and the Chinaman:

TmhUtah: Read Clausewitz and Sun Tzu before executing the Bush administration's treatment of the mullahs out of hand.

Oof. That statement probably had both these guys spinning so hard in their graves that we could generate power from it.

No one starts a war - or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so - without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.
- Karl von Clausewitz

Bush's state goal in Iraq: A free and democratic country. Its on its way. Why don't you quote what Clauswitz said about friction in war?

A government should not mobilize its army out of anger ... Act when it is beneficial; desist when it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to its existence, and the dead cannot be brought back to life.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

What was in the ellipsis? Sun Tzu is one of the most overrated and misunderstood pieces of literature ever penned.

Here another Sun Tzu quote:
"All warfare is based on deception"

So, who's being decieved? You? Me? the Baathists? I dunno. I'm not in on the war plans, and more to the point neither are you.

double,

Al-Sadr does NOT have a great deal more public support. His defeat can be attributed to quite the opposite.

Except that a lot of people who were all for the armed creation of a Mullahcracy (sp?) are now dead, ...

As the roaches used to say when they received casualties in the excellent underground comic Fat Freddy's Cat, "Well, no matter, we have millions more where they came from."

...and al-Sadr no longer advocates that philosophy of government.

That's news. Source please?

david Al-Sadr does NOT have a great deal more public support. His defeat can be attributed to quite the opposite.

But again, most Iraqis will not fight the terrorists and indeed, are sympathetic to them. According to the poll, 81 percent of the Iraqis surveyed actually approve of or refuse to condemn the killer cleric Al Sadr.

So we Americans are in a bad place, fighting for a people who don't appreciate it.

If I had to choose between N. Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons, I's choose Iran. They at least have a somewhat civilized populace who have something to live for. They have to worry about losing their entire civilization if they use or distribute nuclear weapons.

N. Korea on the other hand has no vauled civilization to protect (comparatively). Plus they need to sell nuclear technology to raise cash. I always considered them crude and dangerous, but with nucs, even more so.

Eric Blair UG quoted from the German and the Chinaman

Point of order. You may not be aware of this, but in my neck of the woods, the term "Chinaman" is about on par with most of the usual other ethnic slurs, including the 'n' word.

double,

you have defeated me. carry on.

david you have defeated me. carry on.

You fought valiantly, sir, and you have my respect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3799371.stm

Maybe I'm reading too much into this:

Mr Sadr added that the formation of the government was a good opportunity to bury past differences and "forge ahead toward the building of a unified Iraq".

But I'll say it again; 81% may be saying "you may have a point, Sadr" but aproximately 0% were in the trenches with him. (A thousand ? out of 25 million to start with, considerable fewer going home intact.)

D+UG,

According to an even newer poll in Iraq, 68 percent support the new government.

I suspect the "support" for al Sadr is a point of pride for them. Only a miniscule percentage want him running the country.

Mark, al-Sadr was marginalized late last year partially because he was calling for immediate elections. The fact is that he knows that in certain constituencies, clerics are going to be elected. And the guy is a believer in theocracy a la Iran, and I believe that he thinks that getting to that stage through democracy if fine, if need be. Constrast this to Sistani, who wants a more secular form of government, as he sees the benefits of such a system if a multi-religious society like Iraq is going to stay together. I think that if Sistani cannot control al-Sadr or his followers, there's going to be some real trouble.

And I think you're vastly underestimating his militia. I've always thought that al-Sadr is more of a figurehead for resistance, rather than a real leader. His militia, which is still extremely powerful, is somewhat unpredicatable.

MJT,

I don't know that supporting a free Iraqi government and support a (What may appear to many Iraqis as)religious leader, who bravely fought off the Westerners, forcing them to make peace.

Al Sadr will likely never get a true position of power... but I would be surprised to hear "The Midnight Ride of Al Sadr" someday in Iraqi schools.

;-)

MJT According to an even newer poll in Iraq, 68 percent support the new government.

Like I said, I think they'd support Hitler (or Hussein) at this point if it looked like he'd stop the crime and terrorism. The new leaders are not what I'd call democracy-minded, and they were not the first choice for either the coalition or the UN.

MJT I suspect the "support" for al Sadr is a point of pride for them. Only a miniscule percentage want him running the country.

Maybe, but I think that the love of the Shia for heroic, pious tragic figures struggling against impossible odds may have something to do with it. Kind of like the Western love for the Robin Hood-type situation.

Bush will set the jews on iran. Not the american jews who are building new conveyor type ovens to be used on their israeli brothers.

Never underestimate GW.
Never make assumptions about what GW will do regarding iran.

GW's second term will mean the end of NATO and hopefully our committment to the south koreans.

I see I joined late.....If we are discussing Iran and potential strikes on its nuclear facilities, we cannot ignore the impact of Hezbollah as this is the A team of international terror. Any strike on Iran has to factor in Iran's potential to unleash Hezbollah on American interests at home and abroad. This would make Iran an official enemy, not the quiet enemy it is today. There is no way around this, however, as allowing Iran to go nuclear is not an option. Hezbollah would have access to WMD, and that cannot stand.

Shameless plug alert:
I wrote two small pieces about Iran this week which may be of interest to the discussion:
The Shatt al-Arab discusses the implications of the Iranian grab of the British sailors and what this means in the context of the WoT. Iran's Nukes gives an overview of the nuclear program, the current negotiations with the IAEA and prospects for war. I see no way that Israel will allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and with the US right next door in Iraq, we can give the Israelis the means to do this.

TmjUtah is correct, this is a global war that will last decades and require great sacrifice. The constant carping over casualties insignificant on the scale of past wars is mind boggling, and the anti-war left's demand for perfect war (meaning no war) is killing our chances of winning.

The thing I find most perplexing is that the antiwar croud does not realize the impact of withdrawing from the battlefield of the Middle East. Isolationism is not an option in the world of nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, and if one goes off in this nation, the demand for immediate and merciless retaliation will not be ignored, even if the president has a (D) next to his name.

This is why we so-called neo-cons fight, to prevent this nightmare scenario.

It seems to me that our "bogged down" troops are bogged down building schools, passing out toys, and in general doing things that are not under the category of shooting bad guys.

I greatly support this effort by the way.

But all it would take is to say, "OK boys and girls, pick up your rifles and head east".

Raymond: Not the american jews who are building new conveyor type ovens to be used on their israeli brothers.

What on earth are you talking about, Raymond?

MT-

I'm married but separated to a european, have permanent residency there. While in brit about two years ago, I was called a zionist, repeatedly by relatives. I'm not jewish, but it had a real effect on me. I'm 34yo, Israel has always existed in my lifetime, and the concept of zionism seems antiquated. Therefore use of the 'zionist' term seems to me nothing but anti-semitism.

I have a problem with the very wealthy far-left jewish element that funds many anti-semitic organizations. Have you ever watched an anti-war rally on c-span?

Anyways, in my lifetime the israelis have built an economy comparable to a western european country while under siege by several hundred million muslims. The palestinians are just such spectacularly unsympathetic people in my eyes. Zionism was a done deal in 1973. A person like George Soros and those like him give me the creeps, and there are a lot of them.

Well, I'm glad Raymond cleared THAT up. For a moment, I thought his post was a little bit loony.

>>>...the israelis have built an economy comparable to a western european country while under siege by several hundred million muslims. The palestinians are just such spectacularly unsympathetic people in my eyes."

This Raymond is spectacularly sympathetic my own eyes.

This Raymond is spectacularly sympathetic my own eyes.

What the hell are you people drinking? And can I have some?

I absolutely, positively, without equivocation,despise the Iranian theocracy. AND,they should never be allowed to get their nasty little hands on nuclear weapons BUT---
This is an election year guys. The party of moral and possibly physical defeat has first to be re-consigned to the wilderness for another 4 years before GWB can do what has to be done.
MJT PLEASE stop saying that Kerry is better than ANYTHING.I would rather have Dean as CIC than Kerry.At least with Dean I know he is a nutbar and cannot be trusted.With Kerry who can ever say what he might find it EXPEDIENT to do.This is not a time for 'triangulators' or 'nuance'.
First things first then deal with IRAN. We need
to get a better handle on Iraq first so that the troops are not vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
A 'few pinpricks' won't do it by the way. The maroons in Tehran really don't care too much about a few Iranians being lost.Just martyrs for the gorious cause.If you are talking military actions in Iran you are talking a massive show of air power for a considerable period of time AND lots of 'collaterial damage'. I believe it may be required BUT it won't be pretty and it won't be easy.It might start with a surgical strike but it won't end at one.

Should we be surprised that we are losing our will, after months of Bush-bashing by the Leftists in the media, which is most of the media ? Talk about Fox News and talk radio all you want, but you all KNOW that most of the people in media are Leftist.

We are living in a world of bizarre contradiction and implausible yet real political views. Those who benefit the most from this wonderful greatest-ever free nation ( people like Michael Moore and his friends ) seem the least able or willing to face the grave dangers that confront us. Those whose lives are the antithesis of the racist, sexist, theocratic fascists of the world ( artists, the hollywood crowd, journalists ) do now want to liberate the women and homosexuals enslaved by Islamo-fascism. Yet, our brave soldiers, many of whom would disagree vehemently with the lifestyles of the hollywood crowd, are risking their lives to free the women and homosexuals of Iraq from fascists.

Are the young people flocking to Fareinheit 9/11 getting both sides of the story ?

We hate war, and that is a GOOD thing. But we ARE at war ! What will it take to wake us up ? A nuked Cincinnati ?

Does ANYONE SERIOUSLY doubt that Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings will vote for Kerry ?

What planet am I living on ? Where is a sane planet, and how do I get there ?

Are we going to have a civil war in this country ?

The constant attacks by the media and the Democratic party on both the motives and the results of the Iraq action have taken a toll. As Victor Davis Hanson points out, while things are actually moving forward albiet slowly in the overall WOT, naysayers at home may doom the effort. Some of this is Bush's fault for not effectively fighting back. But those who have attempted to hurt Bush by laying into the war over and over again have hurt moral and inevitably made the administration gun shy. Their actions, done for partisan gain, have done great damage to American security. I pray Bush wins a strong mandate in November to carry the effort forward and that it will not be too late to stop the Mullahs.

Freeguy: Are we going to have a civil war in this country?

Hell no. If you want to see dangerous polarization, look at Latin America in the 1970s.

Michael,

Thanks. I needed that correction. And I feel a bit ashamed actually.

In case you couldn't tell, I was all hyped up when I made that comment about a "civil war". I was fighting mad when I posted that, having just seen Moore's movie. I don't really think we are heading toward civil war. But trust me, there were some vile, angry Lefties at that movie today. And I live in the heartland ! What is it like at the movie theatres in the blue states right now ? I shudder to think.

If only we could shut-up Michael Moore, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader all the people who think like them, this nation would be fine. And we could probably get serious about solving our problems.

On the other hand, maybe Moore and his silly movie are a good thing if you are pro-Bush. I think these Loony Left folks have the potential to backfire on Kerry in a big way, just like the Religious Right has backfired on Republicans sometimes.

I just have a feeling that Moore and the people who think like him are going to hurt Kerry. I am a partisan, so maybe I am wrong. Maybe it's just me. But it is a gut feeling I have.

We shall see.

Michael -

You asked "Are We Out of Gas?".

I propose that we are not. Mr. Hoagland's article reflected a whole lot of traditional pre- 9/11 analysis and skipped over the true weakness in our efforts - the wilfull and conscious campaign of our political minority to exploit (and I'm being generous limiting their intent to mere exploitation; they've gone much further than that) any conceivable political advantage from the burdens, mistakes, and reverses inherent in any war.

They've spent every second of the last three years building momentum for a laughable zero-tolerance meme for success in the conduct of ANY response to global Islamofascism. They've been abetted by a majority of our media and a vocal minority of celebs and pundits.

All the analysis and propaganda and agenda and angst is going to bump up against cold reality for about 200+ million Americans in November.

The most damning thing we hear is "It's Bush's fault"....and I guess it's true. All he's done this last four years is exactly what he set out to do. If one declines to embrace the silly zero-tolerance for reverses/ conflict = defeat memes and look at where we are and what our intended objectives are, I don't think there's much case for changing leadership given the men under consideration.

You will have your answer in November. If we elect Kerry, I'll agree with you. Matter of fact, I'll make a note right now to remind me to email my "you wuz right" message as soon as the decision is final.

I don't think I'll be sending you any mail, honestly. The reason that we are the last superpower is that most of the time when push has come to shove we have made survivable decisions. I don't think a majority of Americans will elect MoveOn.org's second choice. We aren't that fornicated up. Not yet