Do you think there will be any more invasions?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Well, we got almost four years to go (2008). Do you think Bush will make it that long without invading any more countries?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Travman 6]

He'll find someone else to invade.

[ryoder 1,412]

Quote

Well, we got almost four years to go (2008). Do you think Bush will make it that long without invading any more countries?

My money is that he will invade Iran, thereby filling in the gap between Afghanistan and Iraq. This way we will have just one ongoing war, instead of two.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Well, we got almost four years to go (2008). Do you think Bush will make it that long without invading any more countries?

Only if he is prepared for a complete collapse of the $US

The costs of his current war have caused a huge decline in the value of the dollar already.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[larsrulz 0]

Quote

Only if he is prepared for a complete collapse of the $US

The costs of his current war have caused a huge decline in the value of the dollar already.

That's an awefully big jump to say that the war alone is responsible for the current state of the dollar. Considering our economy has grown very very considerably (27.5% for the Dow and 43% for the Nasdaq over the past two years since the war began), that can be construed in the same way to say that the war in Iraq has caused huge dividends in our own economy.

Both are completely bogus statements.

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

Well, we got almost four years to go (2008). Do you think Bush will make it that long without invading any more countries?

My money is that he will invade Iran, thereby filling in the gap between Afghanistan and Iraq. This way we will have just one ongoing war, instead of two.

Interesting theory, but that would be a really bad idea. As I've mentioned here before, the Persians are a great deal feistier than their Arab counterparts, and would only conduct a guerilla war until they could launch a huge counterattack. They have a much more disciplined and professional military than most people recognize. The Shah's generation of military leadership is gone in Iran, but the mullahs weren't stupid: the Jordanian-style officer and NCO corps in Iran have real leadership, and they wouldn't have any problem rallying the troops to repel invaders. As I 've said before, Saddam found that out the hard way in 1982. We'd do well to learn the lesson the Persians taught him.

Another factor in the ethnic makeup is the contrast in Iraq: we've got a lot of friendlies / neutrals in Iraq (Kurds / Shias), and a minority of hostiles (Sunnis / Baathists and assorted TW/RIFWs/Jihadis). In Iran, there would be a 100% hostile indigenous population.

Then, an overextended high-tech military that has a huge Achilles' Heel: its supply train. All those techno-toys are force multipliers, but require a great deal of TLC, via logistics. Take that away, and well, an AH-64 Apache that can't fly because it doesn't have parts or armament is still pretty, but ineffective.

Our troops would be reduced to fighting WWI style, and that's something the Iranians are very good at.

Talk about a hornet's nest.

These little tidbits have been discussed by military planners over the years, and have gotten more scrutiny since the Iraq occupation began. I think that nobody up there can pour perfume on it and call it good - it's just screaming STUPID!

Soldiering 101, or how to be an effective Armchair General:

Several things have to occur before any military campaign takes place.

First, the attackers must convince themselves that it's worth the cost. Obviously, that's driving a lot of the action in Iraq. As long as that mindset persists, the occupation will continue.

Second, a campaign must meet strategic goals of some kind, whether they are economic (steal the goats), political (obtain tribute), or military (we're on our way somewhere else, or there is some greater payoff to be had by going for it [witness Germany's rush for the Caucasus in WWII]).

All the defender has to do is to make it appear to the attacker that it just isn't worth it.

The Iranians aren't having any problem with that, just from the military standpoint.

External factors: Politically, it would be suicide. We'd lose the few friends we have left. Even the Saudis, who are of course Sunni Arabs, wouldn't be able to ignore something like this. Can you say "Embargo"?

It would also be ruinous from the economic standpoint. We're now spending $87,000,000,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight.

Manpower: there are only so many trigger-pullers to go around. I think it's something like 20 to 1 (20 REMFs for every infantryman), and no draft, and no hope of one.

I'll stop now - an invasion of Iran isn't going to happen, for all of the reasons I've mentioned, and many more.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Zenister 0]

you raise many good points, and many points that as you mention have been discussed by military experts and planners for years... unfortunately Bush doesnt have a good record when it comes to listening to military experts who disagree with his agendas... and he doesnt have to worry about reelection anymore...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[ryoder 1,412]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, we got almost four years to go (2008). Do you think Bush will make it that long without invading any more countries?

My money is that he will invade Iran, thereby filling in the gap between Afghanistan and Iraq. This way we will have just one ongoing war, instead of two.

Interesting theory, but that would be a really bad idea.

My comment was with tongue firmly in cheek. I am totally opposed to any action against Iran. Iran has an ongoing internal struggle between the entrenched old mullahs who are still living in the past, and the open-minded liberals who are being elected by the population. In my opinion, it is inevitable that the latter are going to eventually depose the former.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Botellines 0]

Exactly, every revolution must start from within, and they sooner or later happens. The question is if Bush is willing to wait or will want to rush things.

I wouldn´t trust anyone who hears voices in his head that tells him to do things.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Only if he is prepared for a complete collapse of the $US

The costs of his current war have caused a huge decline in the value of the dollar already.

That's an awefully big jump to say that the war alone is responsible for the current state of the dollar. Considering our economy has grown very very considerably (27.5% for the Dow and 43% for the Nasdaq over the past two years since the war began), that can be construed in the same way to say that the war in Iraq has caused huge dividends in our own economy.

Both are completely bogus statements.

The Dow and Nasdaq do not represent an objective evaluation of the economy. The trade gap (record high), the budget deficit (record high) and the value of the dollar on international exchanges (dropping) are better indicators of how it stands in the world.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

I would think this more dependent on the actions of other nations than of GWB himself.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[markd_nscr986 0]

I think Canada would be a real prize.......lots of natural resources,not much of a military and for the most part,not much in the way of individual firearms ownership

And can you imagine a Canadian terrorist?

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[SpeedRacer 1]

"Death to the Great Hoser Satan, eh?"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Guest]

Quote

you raise many good points, and many points that as you mention have been discussed by military experts and planners for years... unfortunately Bush doesnt have a good record when it comes to listening to military experts who disagree with his agendas... and he doesnt have to worry about reelection anymore...

We're in the current mess, IIRC because he listened to his advisers, not because he didn't.

Here's a quote from James F. Dunnigan's Strategy Page:

"The Islamic conservatives who control the government are worried about American intervention, but not an American invasion. Anyone with a bit of knowledge about military strategy and history knows that invading Iran is a very different matter than invading Iraq. Iran is a much tougher opponent, even with most Iranians unhappy with their current government. Iran has three times as many people as Iraq, and the dominant ethnic group, ethnic Iranians, comprise about half the population. In contrast, Iraq has been successfully invaded several times in the last century. Not so Iran. But Iran is vulnerable to a foreign power providing support for rebels inside Iran. Unfortunately, most Iranians want change, but they don't want to use violence to do something about it. If anyone invaded Iran, most of the population would get behind defeating the invaders. Over the last five thousand years, there have been few successful invasions of Iran. The country has geography, and a tough, resourceful population, to provide a formidable level of resistance. But the United States could do a lot more to support the numerous anti-government sentiment inside Iran. That support may be happening already. By providing money, equipment (radios, computers, cell phones) and information about what Islamic conservatives are doing to the population, but trying to keep quiet, the United States just increases the popular pressure against the Islamic conservatives. Unfortunately, American pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program is generally unpopular within Iran. Most Iranians see the possession of nuclear weapons as neccessary for national defense, and something a nation of Iran's history and stature deserves."

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

you raise many good points, and many points that as you mention have been discussed by military experts and planners for years... unfortunately Bush doesnt have a good record when it comes to listening to military experts who disagree with his agendas... and he doesnt have to worry about reelection anymore...

We're in the current mess, IIRC because he listened to his advisers, not because he didn't.

not quite. we are in this current mess (and in itlargely alone and paying for it all) because he listened ONLY to those advisors who agreed with his agenda, and blatantly and publicly ignored and derided the military experts who's estimates and predictions have since proven to be 100% accurate.

Bush's record clearly shows he makes a decision, THEN looks for evidence to support them... a piss poor way to lead...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Anyone with a bit of knowledge about military strategy and history knows that invading Iran is a very different matter than ........

Deja-vu all over again. It was said before taking back Kuwait, it was said before Afghanistan and it was said before Iraq, heck Peter Arnett gushed about how the US was bogged down in Iraq in the middle of the most rapid and crushing advance in military history.

I'm not advocating one position or another but geeze this is like watching a goldfish swim around a bowl. It doesn't matter how often someone makes silly claims about a country not being invaded successfully centurys or even millenia ago with bows and swords followed by a prompt successful modern invasion, the concept never seems to lose its attraction.

Anyone with a knowledge of recent history should be intimately familiar with how silly historical analogies like this are w.r.t. the use of overwhelming force. We have more to learn from the blitzkrieg and recent US actions so thanks for the history lesson to conveniently match your political agenda but no thanks.

[billvon 2,476]

>It doesn't matter how often someone makes silly claims about a
>country not being invaded successfully centurys or even millenia ago with
> bows and swords followed by a prompt successful modern invasion.

Yeah. Geez, next thing you know, people will be claiming we didn't win the Korean or Vietnamese wars.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>It doesn't matter how often someone makes silly claims about a
>country not being invaded successfully centurys or even millenia ago with
> bows and swords followed by a prompt successful modern invasion.

Yeah. Geez, next thing you know, people will be claiming we didn't win the Korean or Vietnamese wars.

Or worse.... repeatedly latching onto the Vietnam war as the inevitable mould for all US conflicts when the differences vastly outweight the remote similarities despite the rhetoric.

If it's not some fantasy about how Napoleon couldn't do it with muskets its some nonsense about how various contorted and selective observations mean "this will be another Vietnam".

Goldfish!

[Gawain 0]

I have heard some hypothesize that it would take the fall of one more regime in that area to make the drastic changes for reform, democracy, and progress "stick". However, many of those lines of thought were before the Iraqi elections, and the deaths of Arafat and Hariri.

Having said that, I will also have to agree with markharju on many of his points with Iran. However, I do not believe that Iran would require an all out land campaign to affect drastic change there if needed. The political situation there may be more tenuous than many may think (or hope). I don't think we would need to win the "hearts and minds" of the "Persians", but rather find a way to push them to really despise and oust their "revolutionary" mullahs and leaders who have fallen far from any promises made 25 years ago.

edit to add: Also, Bashir Asad (Syria) could be a target, but I'm reading that he may not be 100% in control of what's happening. He's not what his father used to be.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Guest]

After Hafez died, Bashir was brought hurriedly home from medical school and given a crash course in How To Be A Dictator (tm), the thinking being that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

The ties with Lebanon are more based on economic connections than anything else. There is a lot of Syrian business built up in Lebanon, with intermarriage, etc. That all stands a good chance of going away, and civil war coming again.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Iran is not an Arab country, and it's much more homogenous (read: less fractious and purely tribal) than the areas we've overtaken thus far (Afghanistan, Iraq). I'd be interested in any analyses that may have been published along the lines of your remarks; e.g., that it would only take a bit more geopolitical terraforming of the region (by invading Iran?) to make widespread reforms "stick".

Before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I predicted that Iraq would be another Islamic Republic (tm) along the lines of Iran (I was expecting Iranian support for the Iraqi Shias being an overwhelming force), but now I know that an Iranian-style Islamic revolution won't take in Iraq the way it did in Iran - the population simply isn't as ethnically homogenous as Iran is.

However, the same thing that is keeping a widespread Islamic revolution from taking place in Iraq is the exact opposite across the border: homogenous ethnicity.

The Persians are less ethnically diverse than the Arabs in Iraq are, and although the Iranians are clannish / tribal to an extent, they identify much more readily with the Persian nation/state. This is what we would be going up against.

Here, at last, is a "Vietnam Analogy" that bears a striking resemblance for a change. The only thing that's missing in Iran is a messianic Uncle Ho figure, but it's possible that the theocratic leadership would rise to the occasion, especially if it's against an external foe.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Here, at last, is a "Vietnam Analogy" that bears a striking resemblance for a change. The only thing that's missing in Iran is a messianic Uncle Ho figure, but it's possible that the theocratic leadership would rise to the occasion, especially if it's against an external foe.
.

So who plays China (with an assist from Russia)?
And where's Laos for them to run away with impunity?

[Guest]

China indeed. China is playing a role right now, but the only reason they were involved in Korea and Vietnam was because of geographical proximity.

They've since achieved near-superpower status. They are an economic giant, and have just surpassed the US in terms of consumption of raw materials (we're no longer the biggest profligates on the planet - heh), and have had the military power for a while now, with the economic means to sustain it.

With these achievements come political power. China is the "sleeping giant" that is making its presence felt in the region.

The "Laos Analogy" is not so much political as it is geological. The Annamite Cordillera was the major boundary between Laos and Vietnam; in this part of the world, it's the good old Hindu Kush, and the other vast rugged ranges we'd have to put boots on the ground in if we were to achieve anything worthwhile.

If the US was foolhardy enough to invade Iran, the pissed-off indigenous population would be only one of the enemies we'd have. The harsh terrain has been defeating armies for centuries.

Our opponents would be able to "hug the belt" as Giap so famously strategized, because the people would be tough-minded and determined enough to have the intestinal fortitude to engage us that way, and just like in SEA, our major advantages of air power, armor, even artillery, would be diminished. Notice how hard it's been to get Bin Laden? Now imagine a whole army of Bin Ladens in a landscape like that.

There might also be proxy support from Chechnya and other disenfranchised minorities in the region. The Arab League would also be funneling assistance through the back door.

Don't forget the destablizing influence that a war on two sides would have on Pakistan. If Pakistan is toppled in an Islamic revolt brought on by our action in Iran, the whole game could shift, because then there will be (non-covert) nukes in play.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[dorbie 0]

Smacks of the preamble to Afghanistan. The real Laos factor was the Whithouse hamstringing the US forces, preventing them from prosecuting a war against enemies sheltering and raiding from a no go area.

As for the surrogate China support there'd need to be the equivalent of very substantial tangible support and a Ho Chi Minh trail. I don't think that would be tennable today. Many other things spring to mind like effective air defences supported and updated by an enemy superpower over an enemy controlled zone etc. It just doesn't fly.

[Guest]

Quote

Smacks of the preamble to Afghanistan. The real Laos factor was the Whithouse hamstringing the US forces, preventing them from prosecuting a war against enemies sheltering and raiding from a no go area.

As for the surrogate China support there'd need to be the equivalent of very substantial tangible support and a Ho Chi Minh trail. I don't think that would be tennable today. Many other things spring to mind like effective air defences supported and updated by an enemy superpower over an enemy controlled zone etc. It just doesn't fly.

I agree. It's a very different part of the world - different people, different cultures, mores, etc. Nothing is like it was in SEA, and probably never will be again. Don't forget that Vietnam was just one of many anti-colonialism struggles that were being fought at the time. Russia and China supported these when it was in their interest, but ignored others. The Malay campaign (1948-1960) was an excellent example of this. This was the one that liberals don't want you to know about - it's the one that the communists LOST).

I've tried to discuss this in terms I understand best; e.g., how geography plays a role (as it did in Laos - it wasn't just politics that shaped the prosecution of the war), as well as history, economics, and the political players in the region (and other powers) and their interest, vested or otherwise, in the outcome.

Another major part of it is in understanding one's opponent. There were some excellent lessons learned in SEA that have been successfully applied elsewhere, like Afghanistan. It took having our asses kicked to make us learn all the major lessons - we finally re-learned what we taught the British in 1779: Arrogance doesn't win wars. Ruthlessness doesn't win wars. The only thing that will win a war is when one has engaged and defeated the enemy on his own ground, on his own terms, because that is the only way that he will acknowledge defeat, otherwise, it can be rationalized away.

Consider how much different the world might be if the British had not had so much Hohenzollern / Prussian influence on their military machine at the time, and had adopted the commando / guerilla tactics that the Americans had learned in the French & Indian Wars. Indeed, the American Revolution was Brittania's Vietnam.

However, they learned from their mistakes, and applied the lessons learned in the North American campaign to the Peninsula Campaign a generation later.

Back to Iraq:

A lot of noise has been made about how Russia, Germany, France, et al were opposed to Iraq because they had big money deals with Saddam (whereas we were buying oil from the cocksucker - kind of at opposites, as it were. The US was a source of money; the other powers were a source of drain, with oil as the fulcrum. Kinda like how current flows through a transistor, but I digress). This is a telling point in the geopolitics of the region: there are a lot of players and interested parties, and they're hungry for one of two things the Middle East has to offer: either oil for one's economy, or money for all the arms, infrastructure, nuke plants, and everything else that the other powers can sell them.

A power is either in the front door or in the back door, depending on how much money and influence said power has.

The fact that the European powers are physically close to all this (at least in the same landmass) is a bit of a concern, too. Of even more concern is the proximity of the other wannabe player, Russia.

So what does all this have to do with Iran?

The great big Obviousman "Duh" answer is that as it stands right now, the US simply doesn't have the reach. Iran has three times the population that Iraq does and it's much more homogenous.

The major thing that will prevent such a foolhardy action, absent the logistics and scale, is the economic factor - the US cannot sustain this kind of military activity for any length of time without its effects being felt in the street. The SUV drivers are going to get ugly when fuel rationing starts.

And I'll finish with this tie-in to the above remarks: How will generations who've known nothing but largesse and excess react when they're cut off from their profligate consumption ways? "Apres moi, le deluge!"

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Skyrad 0]

No I don't think so, simply because the US millitary couldn't cope and I don't think that anywhere else in the world of note will help again after the Iraq mess. Thats not a slight on the US millitary either, only recently I read about how streached they are and how recruiting s getting harder as the reality of the consequences of serving in a war zone become apparent to people at home. Also I don't think America could afford yet another war. But thats what your President has promised you 'War without end' an everlasting hardon for the Pentagon. do I think Bush would like to invade another country? Without a doubt. Do I think he will? No I think the American people won't stand for it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca