Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 06/22/2007 View Thu 06/21/2007 View Wed 06/20/2007 View Tue 06/19/2007 View Mon 06/18/2007 View Sun 06/17/2007 View Sat 06/16/2007
1
2007-06-22 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Is There a Viable Military Strategy for Disarming Iran?
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 ryuge 2007-06-22 09:26|| || Front Page|| [9 views ]  Top
 File under: Govt of Iran 

#1 The Mongols had one.
Posted by ed 2007-06-22 10:05||   2007-06-22 10:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Perhaps. But the mongols also used strategies other than the sword. Just something to keep in mind.
Posted by Pappy 2007-06-22 10:27||   2007-06-22 10:27|| Front Page Top

#3 When the Mongols occupied Baghdad they didn't send their own army in, they relied on Shi'a and other proxies to do the occupation.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2007-06-22 10:32||   2007-06-22 10:32|| Front Page Top

#4 (1) Remove the Presidential order on assassination. (2) Selectively target the leadership, if possible (3) Support rebellious groups openly. (4) Be prepared to support a coup.
Posted by rjschwarz 2007-06-22 12:27||   2007-06-22 12:27|| Front Page Top

#5 (5) If they announce that they will test a nuke we pull a Lileks and nuke the test site prematurely and then claim that it was theres that went of prematurely.
Posted by rjschwarz 2007-06-22 12:29||   2007-06-22 12:29|| Front Page Top

#6 Ed,
Are you referring to the tactic of building a pyramid of the skulls of all (but one) of a 'resistant' community, as an example to encourage the cooperation of the rest of the communities? While it might be effective, it would pretty clearly be a war crime. And remember, the Monghol Empire didn't last but two generations in it's expanded state.
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2007-06-22 12:39||   2007-06-22 12:39|| Front Page Top

#7 I fail to see how building a pyramid of skulls constitutes a war crime. Is there an Article of a relevant Convention I have missed?
Posted by Excalibur 2007-06-22 12:52||   2007-06-22 12:52|| Front Page Top

#8 I guess it depends on whose skulls.
Posted by Bobby 2007-06-22 13:12||   2007-06-22 13:12|| Front Page Top

#9 Is There a Viable Military Strategy for Disarming Iran?

All of this hand-wringing bullshit continues to ignore the simple fact that the only thing worse than a military conflict with Iran is a nuclear armed Iran. The options are so limited and the consequences of inaction so great that even extreme haste or minor political miscalculation is more than permissible.

As John David Lewis notes in his excellent analysis, "No Substitute for Victory—The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism":
The Iranian Islamic State was born in an act of war against America—the seizure of the American embassy in 1979—and has chanted “Death to America” ever since. Even Muslims at odds with Iran for sectarian reasons, such as many followers of Osama Bin Laden, draw inspiration from it as they engage in their own jihads against the West. Bin Laden’s most important effect in this regard has been to energize and empower radical Muslims to rise above the petty squabbles between Persian and Arab, and between Sunni and Shiite, to join Iran against the “Great Satan”: America. Hezbollah, Hamas, and company are dependent on Iran for ideological, political, and economic strength. It is Iran that addresses the U.N. as a world leader; it is Iran that is openly committed to acquiring the weapons needed to take control of the Middle East; it is Iran that poses as the defender of Muslims against the West (for instance, through loyal clerics in Iraq); and it is Iran that has gained power since the U.S. removed its strongest regional opponent in Iraq.

The conclusion is inescapable. The road to the defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism begins in Tehran. America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now. It must do so openly, and indeed spectacularly, for the entire world to see, for this is the only way to demonstrate the spectacular failure and incompetence of the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a whole.

[snip]

It is vital that Americans take this action for the right moral reasons, openly stated. We must not seek legitimacy for the removal of the Iranian Islamic State beyond the principle of our right to defend ourselves. To pretend that something more than this principle is needed would be to deny the sufficiency of the principle. To base our reasons on the alleged good of others, especially on any alleged benefits to the people of the Middle East, would be to accept a position of moral dhimmitude: the moral subordination of our right to life and self-defense to an allegedly higher principle. It would be to subordinate our lives to the lives of the ayatollahs—who would become our masters. If we cannot stand on the principle of our right to life and liberty against the Islamic Totalitarians’ claim that we must submit to the will of “Allah,” then we cannot claim the right to exist. America’s “weakness of will” is the jihadists’ great hope—as it was the hope of Japanese warriors—but it is something they cannot impose on us. Their only prayer is that we will accept it voluntarily. The price for doing so is our lives and the lives of our children. We must not submit.

To remove this cancerous Islamic State loudly and forthrightly will have immediate benefits. We would avenge the thousands of American terror victims since the 1960s. We would reverse the pitiful image we projected when Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979, and when we fled from Mogadishu and from Lebanon—actions that the Islamic Totalitarians claimed as evidence of our weakness. We could even reverse a tremendous injustice by un-nationalizing the oil companies in Iran—stolen from their owners in 1951—and placing them back into private hands, under government protection. Certainly guarding those facilities from a surrounding civil war—a legitimate protection of private property, backed by a credible threat of crushing force—would be a far better use of our troops than guarding a few blocks in downtown Baghdad from its own residents. The pipeline of money into Islamic jihad would be cut.

Most importantly, by ousting the regime in Iran, we would send a clear message to the world: Political Islam is finished. Weaker states and groups would cringe in terror—as they did briefly after 9/11—and would literally retreat into holes in the ground. Anti-totalitarian forces across the world would be emboldened by the sight of a real defense of life and liberty. Allies we never knew existed would raise their heads with confidence and join the cause of freedom. The land of the free—rejuvenated as the home of the brave—would rejoice as the nation of the secure. We would truly be on the road to victory, freedom, and peace. By affirming the efficacy of reason and individual rights over incompetent dark-age theocracy, America could once again claim its place as a real world leader, and become a beacon for those who understand, and value, freedom.
[emphasis added]

The foregoing is all the justification we need for eliminating Iran's theocratic government. Nuclear weapons are mere window dressing in comparison to how vital it is that Islamic rule be thwarted at every turn. Theocratic Islam must go!
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-06-22 15:45||   2007-06-22 15:45|| Front Page Top

#10 No.
Posted by Timur Lang 2007-06-22 16:29||   2007-06-22 16:29|| Front Page Top

#11 There should be no further talk of disarming Iran. Iran and Pakland need to be used as examples. Millions should be wiped out in milliseconds. And, certainly, Riyadh should be targeted at the same time. You can't deal logically with Muzz. Bush-Cheney thought that surely if one got rid of the overlord and torturer and provided new, free infrastructure, and handed out goodies to each separate sect in turn, then logic would dictate that US oil could go in, develop the fields, pump for 30 years, spread some more goodies as things went along and everything would turn out hunkie-dorie. So very wrong. Not at all what Muzz respect and appreciate. So bigtime failure for Bush-Cheney. Don't expect them to do anything w.r.t. Iran. Just bluster. The irony is that the tough task will probably fall to the Dhimmicrat POTUS inbound in 2008. But, you never know, maybe this unfortunate soul will respond with some brass ones when required after all. Recall that poor ol' Harry Truman didn't even know a single thing about the huge effort behind the atom bomb until the day after FDR died. Yet, he did know what to do when called upon. Just some good horse sense . No high and mighty political BS required.
Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-06-22 19:30||   2007-06-22 19:30|| Front Page Top

#12 Recall that poor ol' Harry Truman didn't even know a single thing about the huge effort behind the atom bomb until the day after FDR died. Yet, he did know what to do when called upon. Just some good horse sense . No high and mighty political BS required.

Woozle, why am I so afraid that the vast majority of our politicians do not have even a fraction of Truman's IQ?
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-06-22 20:53||   2007-06-22 20:53|| Front Page Top

#13 No. Posted by Timur Lang

Whaddaya mean by no?
Posted by Temujin 2007-06-22 21:08||   2007-06-22 21:08|| Front Page Top

#14 Because they don't?
Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-06-22 21:13||   2007-06-22 21:13|| Front Page Top

23:59 Super Hose
23:51 Old Patriot
23:48 Super Hose
23:44 crosspatch
23:43 Super Hose
23:42 Old Patriot
23:42 crosspatch
23:42 OldSpook
23:37 OldSpook
23:30 macofromoc
23:24 trailing wife
23:21 Super Hose
23:14 Secret Master
23:14 8872
23:11 trailing wife
23:10 Super Hose
23:04 Super Hose
22:49 Pappy
22:47 Pappy
22:45 trailing wife
22:44 Pappy
22:43 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:39 twobyfour
22:31 8872









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com