Posted on 02/14/2006 5:07:42 PM PST by chilepepper
Europe has fought two Thirty Years' Wars. The first destroyed nearly half the population of German-speaking Europe between 1618 and 1648, and the second claimed 10 million casualties in its first phase (World War I) and 55 million lives in its second (World War II). In both cases, a century of well-meaning efforts to preserve peace ensured that war, when it came, would last until two generations of soldiers and civilians had been slaughtered. Washington wants to avoid a small war in the Middle East today, and instead may set in motion yet another Thirty Years' War in the region.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
This just makes me even more convinced that the key to eventual peace in the Middle East is in neutralizing Syria first, *then* Iran. With some luck, that will take the wind out of Iran's sails and leave them isolated, and with a destabilized and humiliated government since Iran will not be able to prevent Syria's fall. If we can take Syria down quickly, then we *may* be able to avoid the two/three front war which would be a certainty if we take out Iran's nuclear facilities first...
Sure ...if it has the same effect of emasculating the middle east....
bring it on for 50 years......
and neuter them like Europe has been neutered!!
Civil war in Iraq is always a possibility and that will not change until all parties find themselves with more to gain from cooperation (ie an equitable share of oil revenues) than from confrontation. That happy situation is yet to eventuate but is closer than I had hoped only a year ago. Spengler argues that a delay in attacking Iran will enhance the possibilities of civil war; I argue the opposite. We may both be partially correct.
The Europeans, and even the Saudis, will fight rather than allow Iran to become a nuclear power, although they wish to fight much less than Washington.
With what? And how do they propose to get there? This is silliness; the actual prospect of substantive European and Saudi military participation is close to nil with the exception of the British and perhaps the Poles. To be sure, all of these can provide aircraft to bomb Iran at need but that is not how this will be settled. What will happen is precisely what has been happening: an endless round of fretting, weighing of increasingly unfavorable odds, dithering, braying for a peace they aren't to be allowed, and hoping that the United States will shoulder the approbrium of the Arab world as well as that of the European one in settling the issue for them. That is what will happen.
And we may not. This situation looks as if it may very well devolve into a Cold War writ small (and very, very nasty), a struggle between proxy armies that takes place under the umbrella of a mutual nuclear terror. Our best hope for peace at that point will rest in the sanity of a fellow who seems certifiably insane, the good intentions of numerous groups who have heretofore been implacably hostile, the trust of the untrustworthy, and the peaceful intentions of the openly and wildly warlike. It isn't exactly a recipe for success. Here I agree with Spengler as well - it would be less evil to move up the confrontation. That would require a courage on the part of a number of parties in whom I've yet to see any particular sign of its emergence, and the use of political capital that Bush has, through the short-sighted opposition of his opponents both in Europe and in the United States, had to spend in amounts in Iraq that may make such a step infeasible in Iran. If it happens Bush will manage a magnificent and unlikely act of leadership for which his opponents will damn him for all eternity.
So why the hell stop their revolutions. A war among themselves might even up the demographics.
With what? And how do they propose to get there?
Funny, even in the Middle Ages the Crusaders managed to "get" to the Middle East. I know that high tech wars require logistics, but Europe has plenty of planes and ships, both military and civilian. Where there is a will, there is a way. I think Europe fighting is more a question of will than anything else.
I wonder how GWB is sleeping these days. I couldn't imagine the stress he must be feeling.
Let it start.
Not to meantion the US controlls two nations next to Iran, getting there will not be a problem.
There are few Lutherans or Presbyterians in the Middle East.
They are safe.
I honestly think that invading Iran and toppling its government is well within the capability of existing U.S. forces, but that occupation of that country for any appreciable amount of time is well beyond that capacity. Occupation of Iraq took approximately 220,000 troops.
But an Iranian campaign may not look like Iraq. It may well more closely resemble Afghanistan, in which Special Forces are emphasized and the occupation is of key facilities only. Iran is certainly gearing up for that sort of confrontation. Its sober commanders realize what would happen should they decide to roll the tanks toward Baghdad, the commanders that Ahmadinejad hasn't had killed yet, anyway. Iran's emphasis will be on defense of the homeland until they can get a nuclear bomb and probably long thereafter as Europe's will to confront them fades and a confrontation with Israel is delayed in favor of heavy support for Iran's proxy armies in Lebanon. That's my best guess at their strategic plan.
In addition, pressure will be brought to bear on China and Russia to oppose the U.S. for the sake of opposition and (in China's case) a guaranteed oil supply. Even now it is highly doubtful if either of those countries feel that an Iran without the mullahs is preferable to one with them and its resultant opposition to the U.S. That is certainly how they have behaved with respect to North Korea and I don't see it changing. I would truly not look for any help from that area. Russia feels it has the land, and China the population, to withstand any serious military threat that the Iranians can muster now and forever.
If I seem pessimistic it's because I am. This could have been a showcase for international collective security had not those institutions fallen into corruption and irrelevance. As it is it represents the best opportunity for China, Russia, and Europe to return to a Great Powers geopolitical arrangement with the U.S. spending its own power in pursuit of a chimerical settlement of the issue that is in neither China's or Russia's interests and that the Europeans have convinced themselves incorrectly isn't in theirs either. Nations don't have friends, only common interests, and I'm afraid it looks as if we just don't have enough common interests with the ones we need to help us resolve this with a minimum of pain.
Unfortunately, the American Left--including the Democrat Party, Hollywood, academia, and the "Mainstream Newsmedia"--forms a fifth column alliance with America's enemies abroad. This is our biggest problem. And our enemies know it.
An excellent analysis, Bill, and well said. This enemy is far more formidable than the previous upstarts.
It seems to me, then (post #12) that America's best bet is alliance with India. What is your opinion?
But an Iranian campaign may not look like Iraq.
I have often thought we need another model for dealing with these countries. What we are doing in Iraq resembles the Marshall Plan after WWII. While that worked well for Europe, I am not sure it will in Iraq. I think that in Iraq's case, we should have toppled Sadaam, then handed over the reigns to one of his underlings in exchange for a promise that Iraq would serve our interests forevermore. And if that guy didn't keept the promise, we'd make an example of him too. That is certainly not the American way, but would have saved us a lot of pain and treasure.
As for Iran, I think occupation would require a draft. Frankly, we don't have the $$ or political will for it. I don't see anything wrong, however, with bombing them into submission and letting them pick up the pieces. And if they misbehave, we just do it again. Again, its not the American way, but it is better to be feared than loved (from a geo-policitical standpoint anyway). And we will never be loved in the Muslim world.
You just made a very accurate description of our foreign policy for a very long time - "he may be an SOB but he's our SOB." It wasn't ineffective but it didn't turn out to be stable in the long run. And I am not a Bush acolyte but I must express an open admiration for the breadth of thought that went into the change of that policy in favor of building a representative government in Iraq. It was far riskier and far more costly and it may in the end come to nothing...but I'm betting it will not.
As for Iran more comments below. I owe Savage Beast an answer.
Turkey must comprise the bulk of any occupation force. And Pakistan will demand involvement. It is unlikely that the US would be the long-term occupation solution. NATO would only provide limited resources. The UN would only show up after the fireworks, to negotiate cushy contracts. IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.