A couple of Brits here and there maybe, but British Academics? No!
Posted on 09/11/2007 9:37:54 AM PDT by Fennie
An 80-page study written by two British security analysts and released on August 28 makes a chilling estimation of the overwhelming force that the US would use in the event of any attack on Iran. "The US has made military preparations to destroy Iran's WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George W. Bush giving the order," the paper declared...
The "Powell doctrine" holds that the US should go to war only as a last resort and then only with overwhelming force
What are they whining about?
Here’s what I’ve been pushing for, and it sounds like it’s partially coming true.
We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.
The Pentagon always has these strategies at the ready, not only against Iran but all our enemies, immediate or potential. Even though this is not news, it makes me smile when I picture the expression on Ahmadicklesschap's face as he is reminded of his future.
I know they have the plans, they’ve had them since the fall of the Shah.
Its kinda amusing two brits just realized it, and think its ‘new’....(chuckle)
And they wonder why the sun set on the Empire....
No Sh!T, Sherlock! It’s called war-planning, and we’ve got lots of ‘em! (Maybe even one for you guys, if we have to) Most of them never get used, but they give us a good starting point if world conditions suddenly call for one of them.
Shock and awe implies a pause. I would like to see shock and shock.
Breaking things, and killing people, is the job description of the military.
Ours is uniquely qualified. ;-)
Yeah, shock and awe. Listen I wish it were so. But, we know that this is from the lefty wussies who are soooooo afraid that we might upset Muslims and since Muslims are shocking and frightening Englishmen right now on their little island, the USA once again would be the bad , bad, evil nation attacking the Iranian thugs! Can you imagine the Dems if this happened. They would immediately impeach Bush and of course, the media would shake its head. No, no attacks are coming and if they do, Bush will go to the head of any class of brave leaders.
I think the easier way to end all this would be to leave the area entirely.
The Iranian Mullahs will complete their nukes and take Iraq, Kuwait, the Gulf States and Western Afghanistan. The U.S. will stay out of any disputes there and not pledge to defend the Saudis. The Saudis will buy their nukes from Pakistan.
They’ll have a big nuke showdown (Saudis and Pakis against the “Persians”).
The result will be a safer world for everyone else, and the U.S. will be neither the victim or the perpetrator.
An “international commission” can be set up to help the radioactive survivors climb back from the stone-age, with all their former political and religious leaders now dead or in “international custody”.
Why is this news? It would be news if the Pentagon did not have plans to attack Iran.
Plesch and Butcher made no attempt to analyse the underlying economic and strategic reasons for a US attack on Iran or to consider in detail the potential for it triggering a broader war.
Ooh! The evil broader war! With whom? I dunno.
Their study in no way challenged the escalating US propaganda campaign concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programs.
Ha! Iran's ALLEGED program is all US PROPAGANDA!
The real motivation for a reckless, new US war on Iran lies in the Bush administration’s attempts to establish unfettered American dominance in the resource-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.
Ooh, don't you just hate that RECKLESS Bush? He does it for the oil!
Any outcome that allows America’s European and Asian rivals to strengthen their influence in these key regions is simply intolerable to the US ruling elite.
I don't even know where to begin with that BS.
The rather limited scope of the study only makes its conclusion all the more disturbing: the military preparations that would allow the Bush administration to reduce much of Iran to rubble at short notice have already been completed.
Be disturbed, very disturbed...
A new war would take the average citizens attention away from the Illegal Alien Invasion. Just imagine all the fun things our elected public servants could get by with while the public was distracted.
That just could not be true because Ahmadumyjhn said that GWB could not attack Iran because the Americans are bogged down in Iraq. This dude is an engineer and knows about this stuff.
Yeah great idea. The resulting radiation should make the largest oil deposits in the world unreachable for at least 10,000 years. That shouldn’t have any affect on our economy. The trade winds that blow the large amount of radioactive fallout in a wide band across the earth shouldn’t pose too many problems. /sarcasm - i assume you were kidding right?
Cause congress is full of cowards and socialists.
Our president shhould hit Iran with every thing we can throw at it and critics and congress critters be damned.
By the time congress could act it would be all over. If we hit very very hard.
A couple of Brits here and there maybe, but British Academics? No!
The desert makes it easy to scrape off a layer of radioactive sand, we should be back pumping in short order!
How dare we make plans to save the world from Iran and its crazed leader. (How UnPC!)But if Iran attacked, say, France, they’d blame the US for not bombing Iran’s nukes months ago.
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.