Posted on 05/30/2007 6:25:59 PM PDT by Salem
If you haven't read it, you might find America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and Its Enemies, by George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, helpful. Although some of it might be outdated already - and STRATFOR has to stay current because that is their business - it was one of the more insightful works to be published about the Bush Administration's longterm objectives and goals in the Middle East.
We really, really need a qualified, capable candidate for 2009 and a motivated and clear thinking Republican party behind them.
I think the religious factions at play in the region are peripheral issues for the Administration to dealing with Iran and their nuclear ambitions, as well as countering a resurgent Russia, as well as China further out.
Talk to my son-in-law presently deployed...is with command...gets very little sleep...of course we just did small talk...I could tell all is going quite well!!!
Son is an officer on the USS Kearsarge. He writes that he is on watch on the bridge 5hrs, off 10hrs, but during the 10hrs, he tasked with other duties as they practice war games in preparation for deployment in late July. He's not getting much sleep.
No time for sleeping when you are making history! Good for him!!
And Iran knows it.
It'd be nice, but it isn't true. It is just more pols who live for spin putting a week of news cycles above reality and our future. Again.
That's fine, assuming that Sunni and Shia will settle into a resumption of the stalemate that has existed for centuries. But what if each side of that ancient conflict sees an opening from the Iraq War to gain an upper hand over the other? I think that the major reason that Bush, Sr. did not go into Baghdad back in 1991, was that it would lead to a resurgence of Shiite influence, and he was wise enough to see that Jimmy Carter had already done enough damage in that direction by making conditions ripe for the ayatollahs to resume rule in Iran.
Simply put, we could manage Islamunism until that point. Arab states would come together in hasty coalitions, fight Israel, get their butts kicked, and go back to sulking in the desert for a decade or so. The only retaliatory weapon they had against the West was to raise the price of oil, and we'd move to deal with that by conservation measures, and increased domestic production.
We shifted to a different management scheme under the Reagan Administration, we kept the Iranians and the Iraqis busy with each other, trading weapons for hostages to the Iranians, and giving military information from our satellites to the Iraqis. A million Islamunists killed without US troops being at risk was the payoff there.
What's wrong with returning to that strategy? We have the Shiites in Iraq feeling more power than ever, and a crackpot Iranian leader willing to pour his country's blood and treasure into helping them, we have nervous old-line Sunni states with more money than Allah being willing to fund their brothers, the former Baathists, and they're all ready to start killing each other off. We have Kurds with their first-ever homeland, and the Turks (certainly not our friends after 9/11) wanting to go to war with them, proving that they're not ready for prime time as Europeans.
Why are we standing in their way?
Energy. And our access to it, in one of the most unstable regions in the world. And countering the influence in the region of traditional adversaries such as Russia.
And nuclear arms proliferation.
What a pea soup.
I certainly hope there was also "talk" about Iran's supplying IED materiel and expertise to the insurgents (which they also supply). This activity constitutes an ongoing act of war, and it is way past time that we went to the source.
If you're thinking that an air campaign, alone, against Iranian nuclear facilities will do the trick, I must say you are living in a fantasy world.
"The idea is deterrence, repercussion today", you say?
FOOL! that's what they WANT us to try. This would be a continuation of what OBL wanted...for us to "go there", fight against Islamic peoples. Except this time, the Iranians, unlike Saddam, can fairly successfully (to the islamic world) feign innocence.
Osama probably knew his small force would likely be defeated, but did't care if whole bunches of his guys died, since he was betting on a more long term, ongoing battle with "the West", taken up against us, by muslims everywhere. Part of their plan, was our response. How to stir the islamics up, get them fighting against the 'great satan'? By attacking the West visibly, then having us go after them, so that there would be grievance and offense, which could be used by imans (prayer leaders) to indoctrinate and rally the 'faithful', into perpetuity...
Going against Iran, without us achieving a total victory, would ramp up a blood feud that could well last centuries. The real and actual Satan would love that, now wouldn't he? ...he'd be the only "winner".
That's why the OBL types and Ahmadinejad think it's such a great idea to keep tempting us. They love the idea so much, because it comes straight from their master...
Even if we did achieve victory, we're not dealing with a defeated German people here, or a Japanese people who will surrender, and obey, at the word of their Emperor.
Yet, you compare this to fighting the Nazi's, and the Japs, but we're going to do it piecemeal, from the air this time??? Slapping at them, isn't good enough. In fact, it's a bad idea. Worse even, then waiting for a nuke to detonate in the U.S. (albeit when, or if, that happens, the Iranians better put their heads firmly between their knees, and kiss their own asses good-bye.)
Further, I absolutely don't need YOU to be pointing out to me the statements Ahmadinejad has made, posted here at FR from other sources. I've read them already.
Take me off of your ping list. There's another one that overlaps much of the same subject matter...
if that freeper will add me to their list, I'd much prefer to be there, since I can more readily agree with him.
Late to the discussion.
Although I did and still do support the removal of Saddam from power, I often feel the action may have been a stategic blunder. Iraq under Saddam did pose a threat to Iran based on past history, and such a threat may well have
pre-occupied Iran and kept them from going down their current path.
Perhaps a different language could be chosen to express his WOT acumen outside of the US?
bump
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.