JMA, What are the vital US interests
in Pakistan as you see them ? Those should determine US policies re: Pakistan.
I was not being snarky about letting the UK handle Pakistan and other areas if it wished. In my limited worldview for the US, I'd be happy to see the UK, Germany, France (and whatever of the EU willing) take on Eurasian and African continental land mass situations.
Obviously, my worldview is very much a minority US view. So, someone else will have to explain why the US should take the lead in solving the problems of the countries of the Indian Ocean littorals, or in following the lead of the UK if it wanted to jump back into solving those problems.
To provide frameworks for discussion, here is Weinberger:
Quote:
1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
and here is Powell:
Quote:
1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7.Is the action supported by the American people?
8.Do we have genuine broad international support?
Regards
Mike
false 'attack or surrender' argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Perhaps you are correct. Immediate surrender is safest option for the US and Israel.
JMA, you've used that throwaway line twice, to pose a false choice:
1. Threaten, plan and execute some sort of military attack
or
2. Surrender.
Aside from using undefined terms and false logic, it also seems to imply that a containment strategy is cowardly; more faulty, inflammatory rhetoric.
Our current policy, a graduated, aggressive and so far effective economic sanction program is NOT capitulation, nor can you blindly assume that military threats strengthen its counterproliferation effects and coalition.
We have a VP that once assured his Connecticut constituents 'I am a zionist'. We have a WH chief of Staff who volunteered to serve in Israel, when the US was going to war in 1991, and is the son of an Irgun fighter. Throw in SecState Clinton, and it's a pretty pro-Israel administration, with a lot of commitment to supporting the sanctions, domestically, and diplomatically.
A mainforce air strike on sovereign territory is an act of war. A longer war may or may not follow. But lacking a convincing casus beli, the attacked party is being dared to defend themselves, hopefully in a proportional and discriminate manner. If the Israelis or US fleet sends scores of strike bombers and cruise missiles to destroy Iranian oil, air defense, or enrichment assets, what would a proportional defensive response be, after the initial dust has cleared?
Assume the proposed attack is wildly successful, Iran's regime is humiliated, shown to be defenseless; no pilots are captured, and no civilians killed or poisoned with uranium fallout. How does that prove to third world gov'ts that a defenseless Iran didn't need a nuclear deterrent? Dozens of gov'ts around the world will be asking themselves, 'would we rather be Pakistan, or Iran today?' (Hint: Where are the two arch-terrorists most Americans would really like to get at?)
The Iranians may have violated the NPT, may still practice the same deception that Pakistan and Israel used years ago. Proliferation justifies NPT sanctions by all NPT signatories. Iran proliferation is a bad thing, and could lead to further weakening of counterproliferation efforts, if/when a nuclear Arabian IRBM system is declared. Sanctions agin Arabia? Hah. Count our blessings for now, that we're getting cooperation from Russia, Europe and China.
China (An NPT holdout, and a proliferator of bomb designs and missile tech) especially would like to keep Japan, Viet Nam, S. Korea and Taiwan from going nuclear too. How will we feel if China applies Likud's 'preemption logic' against Taiwan? Tacit support from China or Russia for a strike on Iran should be looked at VERY closely for hidden agendas. Russia's 2008 war-occupation of Georgian territory was justified as 'symmetry' vis the wars against Serbia. The 9/11 Hamburg cell originally volunteered for jihad in Chechnya, where the Russian invasion was a recruiting cry for AQSL.
The hope of 'preempting' further Iranian nuclear development DOES NOT make an attack on Iran 'preemptive war'. It's a radically different use of the term, when used re the law of war. Since there is no imminent Iranian threat (Iran has no N-weapons, no credible delivery system, no rational motivation for attacking us, Israel or Arabia), then an attack on Iran constitutes an aggressive war of choice, based on an assumption that they are defenseless against a conventional attack sanctioned by a nuclear power(s).
An attack on Iran seems attractive to some because, in the candid 2002 words of VP Cheney, 'it's doable'. How did Team Cheney's two month war work out, after we won the first round? Wasn't that also justified by false claims of 'imminent threat' ?
Yes, Iran's arming of Hez in S. Lebanon is a problem; a big one for Israel, bigger for Beruit. But it's not a reason for throwing matches into the Gulf oil patch, and it doesn't give Israel carte blanche to blackmail the US into backing a war of choice against Iran- one that they wouldn't even consider without a US checkbook and arms resupply.
Blind faith in quick, painless wars is a poor way to demonstrate courage.
Is it valor we seek, or an outcome we can live with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.
Well, at least you've come out with it. A failure to attack is cowardice, or at least a lack of courage? The courageous attack you propose would not be an act of war, because Iran lacks capacity to defend or strike back at nuclear Israel and America? Hmm.
A coupla days back, it appears that you'd never paused to consider (or were happy to ignore) the significant radiological fallout risk inherent in an air attack on uranium enrichment sites. Is it possible that there are other aspects of your 'if we haven't threatened to blow things up, we're not really trying hard enough' policy proposal that you''ve failed to realistically evaluate?
Attacking Iran because we ignored and mishandled Pakistani proliferation so badly is not a strategy, or a policy, and maybe not even a tactic. It has the feel of a bait and switch misdirect, the appearance of being internally illogical.
Before threatening a war-like attack, I want my Congress to do their duty, hold a fact-based debate, to get real about who else in the ME is nuclear or nearly nuclear, how their story plays against our options and interests. Arabia has said that if Israel admits they arm nuclear bears, then the kingdom must have parity. Well guys, everyone already knows Israel has A-weapons and delivery capability. So?
The proliferation genie won't go back in the bottle just because Israel or America does a drive-by shooting at Iran.