A Cure Worse than the Disease

I'm glad to see that you read my long post.

It was my pleasure. I like your first iteration as well, which was a tad more succinct. But the further elaboration was a good read.

I still hope that Bush will walk the walk before his term is up.

I emphatically do too. This is our country at stake. This isn't about politics. Unfortunately, the politics of the internal enemy within are being weighted too heavily in his calculations by all signs. I could be wrong, but it appears as far as waging a "global" WOT, W has given up. Not realizing that as a "quitter" the verdict of history against him will be profoundly more grave...

So it's likely you will see this posted idea again and again as I've been hoping to start a Meme that will lead to action.

I commend you. That is a good idea. But you will need to make for something a little more than the odd post here and there around the web. I suggest a Blog or web site with the idea in summary form, and then with a fleshed out series of proposed PDD's for the President to implement...and then to give it some urgency and "push" how about having a Petition Drive as part of it? Get about 50,000 signatures, and present it to the White House.

What do you think of my strategic bombing idea? If we bomb Iran's oil industry out of existence, and put Iranians on foot and in the dark, they will have a hard time being a threat.

Totally spot-on...this is undoubtedly the most sensible way to proceed. But it shouldn't be dithered on to have maximal effect. And I am leery of this Administration, as above, doing anything let alone this. Look at how they pulled the rug out from under Israel, when the IDF had only just started getting seriously effective after Hezbollah...as the more profane Freepers would say...WTF??!

And when we have cleaned up Iraq enough to free up troops, it should be easy to do a regime change.

Possibly. But we need to do it right this time. We need to be willing to see massive internal bloodshed. Adhmanejad undoubtedly would have another "insurgency" strategy to try and counter that reprise of Iraq. Hence, I would instead advocate arming an Iranian-Dissident-Only set of battallions...and back them up the way we did the Afghan militias to take down the Taliban. Let them fight it out amongst themselves. With our backing...it would be quick work. And since there is not a history of militias balkanizing the country as in Afghanistan...it is more likely to have a much better final outcome for a peaceful united society.

"Possibly. But we need to do it right this time. We need to be willing to see massive internal bloodshed. Adhmanejad undoubtedly would have another "insurgency" strategy to try and counter that reprise of Iraq. Hence, I would instead advocate arming an Iranian-Dissident-Only set of battalions...and back them up the way we did the Afghan militias to take down the Taliban. Let them fight it out amongst themselves. With our backing...it would be quick work. And since there is not a history of militias balkanizing the country as in Afghanistan...it is more likely to have a much better final outcome for a peaceful united society."

I agree, part of what I have been posting, is this suggestion: "I believe that the mullacracy will take awhile to collapse. So at the same time America starts the war it announces that a New Iranian Army will be trained, Paid, and equipped in Iraq and Afghanistan, to take over Iran as soon as it is ready and Iranians in and out of the country are encouraged to apply. If we did this US Army forces may never be needed in Iran, or if they are just for a few Thunder Runs to topple the Mullahs, with the New Iranian Army mopping up and taking over. Done this way we could write the Iranian constitution and have the new army swear to it before they are allowed to join, this would make starting a new government much quicker."

Also, by using leaflets over Iran, as well as advertising on the ex-patriot Iranian TV, and Radio stations, we gain a propaganda dimension to the campaign, that the Iraqi campaign has never had.

By writing the Constitution for them we can establish the separation of church and state, which I see as the worst problem in the Iraqi and Afghani constitutions. As well as save the year or two it would take for a constitutional convention to be established and to write a constitution which then needs to be voted on. In addition we obviously would use as a basis of the new constitution, the most successful constitution in history, 'the constitution of the United States of America'. We can establish that the clerics are ineligible to serve in office, setting a precedent for the entire region. If this is objected to, and it will be as being dictatorial. It need be only stated that we see this as the most effective and efficent way of doing the job, and "he who pays the piper gets to pick the tune".

Unemployment in Iran is high and the ex-patriot population is large and wealthy. We could end up with a large new American trained army. Especially if we open it up to anyone, even non Iranians, with the understanding that they will receive Iranian citizenship after serving for a certain period of time. It's become obvious that the US has to small of an infantry force. With our deployments in Iraq and else where, our ground forces are stretched, we literally can not support a ground offensive any where else at the moment. By training, equipping, and funding a foreign light infantry army, the US can strengthen its weakness in ground forces, and do it relatively cheaply.

"Look at how they pulled the rug out from under Israel, when the IDF had only just started getting seriously effective after Hezbollah...as the more profane Freepers would say...WTF??!"

I just watched a video report of an Israeli Brigade that went into a town in Lebanon. The number and severity of the mistakes that this unit made was incredible. I have to say from this and other reports that the Israeli army has been gutted. It is poorly trained, incompetently led, and poorly equipped. The Brigade (1,000 men?) in question failed in its mission to take the town, and was repulsed by 3 terrorists who failed to kill a single Israeli soldier. I don't think letting the Israeli army fight longer would have accomplished much. Israel would be wise to request experienced American help in retraining its army, and its officers should be sent to serve as observers with American units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Given the constructive changes that have taken place in China, and the important relationship that has grown up between Washington and Beijing in the past three decades, history has vindicated a policy of restraint."
History isn't "over" yet...

No kidding it isn't. The "Constructive Changes" are subject to a healthy load of salt..i.e., China's economy has not achieved full marketization because that was never part of the CCP's plan. Rather, economic reformers such as former Premier Zhu Rongji and current Premier Wen Jiabao intended to produce a leaner and more competitive -- and thus stronger -- state sector by exposing a select group of SOEs to the discipline of international and domestic market forces under the watchful eye of a sophisticated and professional regulatory bureaucracy. The prices of key commodities and factors of production (such as energy, rail transport, and, as Pei points out, labor, real estate, and credit) remain under the state's control. It is true that tens of thousands of weak state enterprises have closed or gone private since the beginning of the Deng era, but the state has selected about one thousand of the strongest and most strategically placed SOEs to receive as much state help as they need to succeed, not only domestically but in some cases globally. And although some banks have allowed foreign companies to buy minority stakes, they remain state-owned and continue to support both the state-subsidized "pillar" SOEs and state-prioritized infrastructure projects.

In short, the regime never intended to let globalization wash away either its political or its economic power. Globalists may believe that Beijing's plans are irrelevant because they fly in the face of Western theories about the inevitability of marketization and democratization. But proving that an authoritarian regime can prosper through modernization is exactly what is at stake in the Chinese experiment, which is why dictatorships from Kazakhstan to Iran are keenly watching its progress. The thesis of a "trapped transition" implies a teleology that the Chinese leadership does not accept -- and that needs to be defended rather than assumed.

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.