that is a powerful point!
Could we have exited at some point in the past and achieved these goals? If we returned to those modest goals, could we leave now?
Or have our goals grown -- as is so often the case during wars -- to justify our expenditure of blood and money? If so, where does this process end?
Consider the intital goals of the various european states in August 1914, a war which grew into the "war to end all wars." After the deaths of millions, nothing less would do.
The political will to act must precede the use of force
Right or wrong, analysis of the political situation must be the first step when determining the likelihood of war. We see that in the literature from Boyd’s trinity of “people-ideas-things” and 4GW writers’ emphasis on the moral basis of war – back thru Clausewitz, Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu.
Discussing politics is guessing, even for professional politicos and their technicians – so my guesses could easily be wrong! Goesh could easily be right and the new IDF leadership ready to go. Although the political leadership looks weak, Culpeper could be right that in Israel this is less important than in other western states – and that President Bush retains sufficient political capital to order an air strike against Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Culpeper
And what is happening in Iraq is nothing new.
How true! That insight is the basis for 4GW analysis of the Iraq War. Since Mao brought “4GW” theory to maturity, almost all foreign occupiers have been defeated and left – unlike internal insurgencies whose record is mixed (there are intermediate cases difficult to classify). There are deep structural reasons for this, beyond the reach of new tactics. Hence the prediction that our expedition to Iraq will end the same way. We all hope that proves to be wrong, but many experts believe that is the way to bet.
It is just a harsh reality, as in Tom Godwin’s story “The Cold Equations”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Culpeper
It is the day of "brown and black" ops where national security trumps public opinion.
This too is nothing new. SOP during the cold war. That history also suggests that these ops often (usually?) become public knowledge. Today's communication technology probably makes this even more likely than during the 1950's & 1960's. Unfortunatley, many of them damaged domestic and foreign public opinion, more than offsetting their tactical gains.
Noob jumping into the mix...
I read with interest people's opinions regarding an Iran attack scenario, however, lets not dismiss the possbility of some economic action that would possibly hurt the current regime. I read with interest the following article http://www.iags.org/n050707.htm from the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, and they bring up several good points --
1) "...the debate in the West on how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons should focus less on the risky military option, or the seemingly ineffective diplomatic option, and more on a comprehensive economic warfare strategy that targets Iran's energy sector. With oil exports accounting for half the government's budget and around 80 to 90 percent of total export earnings, the surest strategy to bring down Tehran's Islamic regime is to break its economic backbone...."
2) ..."U.S. sanctions have ensured that Iran's oil sector would not recover. President George W. Bush has renewed sanctions first imposed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton, citing the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security posed by Iran. These sanctions prohibit U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran, while also banning the financing of development of Iranian energy resources...."
Bottom line, the sanctions need to be continued and enforced plus more pressure put on China and India for side-stepping the sanctions and working toward fulfilling their own energy shortcomings by working with Iran. There is currently a nationwide gas rationing program implemented in Iran which is causing riots and protests. I believe I see a recurring theme with the media in this country. As I am doing my daily lunchtime workout today I was treated by Fox News to an hour of LAPD chasing some woman who refused to pull-over for them....not a peep about Iran....shame, shame....
Regards, PT
Pragmatic Thinker, You should post a new thread...
there is so much provocative material in your post. Here are a few comments, just scratching the surface.
Proposing a “comprehensive economic warfare strategy” against Iran takes us back to debates from the beginning of the Cold War. That was Kennan’s vision of how to contain the Soviet Union, and he was not happy as his ideas were hijacked by the military.
It’s a powerful concept. It uses our leverage as the hegemonic power, without arousing the fears – and hence opposition – of other states that result from our use of military force.
Unfortunately, Iran holds much of the world’s remaining oil. That makes containment more difficult. To illustrate, what might be the major story of last month went unnoticed by most geo-political observers. I strongly recommend reading it.
“Top IEA official: without Iraqi oil, we hit the wall in 2015”
http://www.energybulletin.net/31397.html
While striking, this is only the most recent in a series of comments by leading officials of the International Energy Agency and the US’s EIA. They are becoming alarmed by accumulating data suggesting that global oil reserves are less than they anticipated.
Aggressive action against Iran, military and/or economic, will mean that we have taken down the two states with the greatest potential to increase oil production. We all know the implications.
Consider the global alliance to contain Iran as a form of the prisoners’ dilemma. We all gain by hanging together. But if this results in $150 oil, the reward for defecting – leaving the alliance, aiding Iran -- becomes attractive.