Article

2006-01-28 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: War against Iran may be a necessity

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by JerseyMike 2006-01-28 07:33|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ..Gawd, that's grim. And sadly, probably right.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-28 08:10|| 2006-01-28 08:10|| Front Page Top

#2 I'd like to note that he begins by blaming the right, twice. First that it isn't strong enough against Iran, and second that it was too strong against Iraq. That is the Hillary Clinton argument.

From thence, his conclusions and formulations are typical of the left: "Let's go in there and have a quick, 50-minute war that resolves everything to emotional satisfaction, and still have time for the commercial break."

Today, this is how the left views foreign policy, as something episodic, like an hour-long television show. At the beginning of a show, everything is exactly as it was at the start of last week's show, then someone enters the President's office and says "Mr President, we have a problem!"

Then he must solve the problem in the next hour, before the audience gets bored. Once solved, however, it is solved for good. Except next week, everything is back to normal, last week's episode is forgotten, and some new problem is on the horizon.

I know it is a surreal comparison, but how far from the truth? Madelyn Albright seemed to believe that the solution to all problems was to send a dozen US Soldiers or Marines somewhere to just stand there, uselessly, without support. She sent such deployments to every corner of the world to accomplish nothing. One of the first acts of George W. Bush was to recall all of these personnel back to their units.

Now, compare this with what the right has been doing for the past year, that is, preparing for a possible war. The administration has had the Pentagon working overtime in preparation; it has had the State Department working triple time to avoid war, if at all possible.

All quiet planning, minimal hoo-hah and emotional gratification. Preparing for a war that could last two years of bitter conflict, result in horrific damage to the world's economy, and become an opportunity for every villain in the world to make mischief because of the distraction.

There is no joy in this, no thrill, no great emotional satisfaction with tidying up all of the loose ends. It is all harsh reality, death and destruction, but always with the mind to stop worse death and destruction--saving not only the lives of as many of our people as possible, but as many enemy lives, civilian and military, as possible.

And where is the left while this is all taking place? Skiing in Davos. Log-jamming the congress as much as possible. Whining that our troops are still in Iraq, and that we should leave the Iraqis "to fight their civil war", to quote John Murtha.

What useless appendages.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-28 08:32|| 2006-01-28 08:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Did we read the same article? The one I read ended:

Because in the end, preparation for war, by which I mean not military feasibility planning, or political and diplomatic manoeuvres but a psychological readiness, a personal willingness on all our parts to bear the terrible burdens that it will surely impose, may be our last real chance to ensure that we can avoid one.

While not Churchillian, this doesn't sound to me like someone preparing for a 50 minute war.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-28 09:08|| 2006-01-28 09:08|| Front Page Top

#4 My greatest fear is the "unsigned" attack. What do we do if a city is destroyed and nobody takes responsibility?

We can, after the fact, identify the source of the nuclear material used to make a bomb. We should tell Iran that any strike from a weapon built with Iranian material will be considered an attack by Iran. It would give the mullahs one reason to keep track of things.

Posted by Formerly Dan 2006-01-28 09:30|| 2006-01-28 09:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Hear, hear 'Moose!

Posted by 6 2006-01-28 10:35|| 2006-01-28 10:35|| Front Page Top

#6 War? We were at war with Japan until the A-bomb fix. Then we had peace by nuclear-diplomacy.

The Bush regime isn't going to take Iran's genocidal threats sitting down. And there are no large preparations going on. Add our overwhelming technological advantage, and we can do exactly to Iranians what we did to the Japanese. And the latter is a friendly, de-militarized state.

Does anyone here have a problem with nuclear-diplomacy? Look, we would use limited resources and would not put ground troops at risk. And the practice would hardly be characterizable as bullying or extortion, given Ahmadnutbar's genocidal threats. The Mullahs talk tough, but they have nothing to back it up.

Grunt-speak from the Officer's Club website, reveals fear of a do-nothing response. As much as I admire those guys; that CAN'T happen.
http://officersclub.blogspot.com/

Check out this book if you can find it:
The Winning Weapon : The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War, 1945-1950 (ISBN: 0691022860)
Herken, Gregg

NUCLEAR-DIPLOMACY: who's with me? Remember, little combat risk, abject surrender from the lowest form of human life to walk the earth. The Chinese get to keep their projects intact.

Posted by ThropmeyerPervexus 2006-01-28 11:18|| 2006-01-28 11:18|| Front Page Top

#7 HA! I pointed this out yesterday - or was it this morning. The new dem talking points are that Bush was not strong enough. This change in talking points came out right after the poll that 57% (not adjusted for usual poll manipulations) support war against Iran.

I guess they are going to try to make the point that Hillary will be stronger. Good luck with that. Best counter argument I've heard to the argument was Newt on Fox. He said (something like) they supported the war in Iraq and then changed their minds once we were over there. Who is to say they won't do it again.

Expect more articles/talk that you agree with from dems supporting the war. But don't be a sucker.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-28 12:03|| 2006-01-28 12:03|| Front Page Top

#8 ..if a city is destroyed and nobody takes responsibility?

There's no "if" here. No one would be dumb enough to admit either guilt or complicity in any sort of attack with a small nuclear device on an American city, even unhinged idiots like the Iranian leadership.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-28 12:47|| 2006-01-28 12:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Baker is right, but he underestimates the American citizenry if he thinks it doesn't anticipate such an event.

But Ledeen is right too. Michael has long contended a regional confict and he is right: a Syria-Iran-SoLe/PA conflict, major and frequent terrorism events on Western soil.

Better to kick the door open soon rather than increase the probability of WMD.

Posted by Captain America 2006-01-28 18:32|| 2006-01-28 18:32|| Front Page Top

13:29 Redneck Jim
13:27 Fred
13:03 Fred
20:35 Master of Obvious
20:31 Sock Puppet O´ Doom
20:27 Phil
18:32 Captain America
18:15 DMFD
18:13 RD
18:13 DMFD
18:10 Halliburton: Earthquake/Tsunami Division
18:10 Captain America
18:05 HV
18:02 mom
17:58 Grunter
17:51 Frank G
17:46 Nimble Spemble
17:45 Alaska Paul
17:45 Nimble Spemble
17:43 Nimble Spemble
17:38 JFM
17:14 Frank G
17:12 Frank G
17:11 RD