Next Small War

[aktarian]

Everything you say are indeed very possible scenarios. And then again there are many others.

Sometimes you have to engage and see what happens.

Starting a war and hoping for the best doesn't sound like a good strategy. you should prepare for the worst case scenario and expect things could go evn worse than that.

Regarding Iran best policy is not to meddle and let things change by itself. Put in checks so that regime can't do much damage and be prepared to deal with new generations without too much focus on the past. If change comes from within it will be much more comprehensive and accepted by population than anything imposed from outside.

[NDD]

Starting a war and hoping for the best doesn't sound like a good strategy. you should prepare for the worst case scenario and expect things could go evn worse than that.

Regarding Iran best policy is not to meddle and let things change by itself. Put in checks so that regime can't do much damage and be prepared to deal with new generations without too much focus on the past. If change comes from within it will be much more comprehensive and accepted by population than anything imposed from outside.

Your opinion. Mine differs. Checks? Without teeth to back them up? Look at the attempted checks on their nuke program now - they aren't even speed bumps.

Yes, internal change is better. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs with external impetus. I noticed you are from Slovenia, would your countrymen rather the US had meddled in 1939 as opposed to letting things change by themselves until 1941?

[NDD]

I couldn't disagree more with John Robb if I tried.

[CPTAUSRET]

Your opinion. Mine differs. Checks? Without teeth to back them up? Look at the attempted checks on their nuke program now - they aren't even speed bumps.

Yes, internal change is better. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs with external impetus. I noticed you are from Slovenia, would your countrymen rather the US had meddled in 1939 as opposed to letting things change by themselves until 1941?

I am with NDD, on this one.

Terry

[aktarian]

Your opinion. Mine differs. Checks? Without teeth to back them up? Look at the attempted checks on their nuke program now - they aren't even speed bumps.

Well, then you need to put some teeth in your attempts.

And I believe that Iranian regime is realistic. I don't think they will start nuking the area as soon as they get nukes so even if they get nuke they will be responsible with it and be subject to detterance.

Yes, internal change is better. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs with external impetus. I noticed you are from Slovenia, would your countrymen rather the US had meddled in 1939 as opposed to letting things change by themselves until 1941?

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that if I wish that US would start taking more active role in Europe in 1939 instead of going to war in 1941? If so it's difference between meddling in internal affairs (such as starting wars) and making an alliance with state.

[Steve Blair]

One of the biggest problems with dealing with a borderline theocracy like Iran is that while the current regime may be realistic, there is no guarantee that the following one will be.

[aktarian]

One of the biggest problems with dealing with a borderline theocracy like Iran is that while the current regime may be realistic, there is no guarantee that the following one will be.

One more reason not to trigger an insurection to topple it.

[Steve Blair]

One more reason not to trigger an insurection to topple it.

But in this case you have no guarantee that the "legitimate" follow-on to the current regime will be practical.

I would also point out as an aside that it's not just the U.S. that needs to monitor Iran's programs. There are other nations that have (or should have) an interest in such things.

[aktarian]

But in this case you have no guarantee that the "legitimate" follow-on to the current regime will be practical.

It depends on who next guys are. If it's just new geenration of mullahs it will be same. If it's young non-clerical leadership they woun't play by religious rules.

Of course this doesn't mean they will be friendly to West but they woun't be hostile either.

I would also point out as an aside that it's not just the U.S. that needs to monitor Iran's programs. There are other nations that have (or should have) an interest in such things.

I think they do. And Iran isn't hostile to others same way as it's toward US or Israel.

[Tom Odom]

Gents,

Small wars as defined by the USMC are already taking place. Darfur , Sudan has seen US airlift transporting my old friends, the Rwandan Patriotic Army, as peacekeepers. The "small war" in the Congo has claimed more than 3 MILLION dead since 1997; periodic flare ups are routine. Zimbabwe is headed toward the abyss; look for bloodletting there in the near to mid term.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict morphs and bubbles as it has since the mid-1930s. I fervently hope that we stay out of that one. Distance and balance are our only friends in that long struggle.

Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria are all candidates for a fiction writer's potential best seller on turmoil. Such fiction would hardly be a stretch.

I won't go into Iraq; the schisms before the war are there after the war. They will be there when we leave.

Those are my regions: Asia, South Asia, Latin America, Eurasia all have their flarepoints.

The commonality between small wars to me has always been they only surprise policy makers; the locals and others who know the regional issues can usually see them coming.

Best
Tom Odom

[NDD]

One more reason not to trigger an insurection to topple it.

Perhaps not trigger it, but I would have no problem supporting it if it broke out spontaneously.

[Martin]

Can someone explain to me the necessity of this question in this context?

By itself, a question of whether we rather be challenged by a crazy regime or a realistic one may be interesting.

In reality it seems IMO to have more to do with timing and their demise. Whether or not Iran is realistic, or a potential successor is, we, including Israel, is facing a threat in regard to their WMD program and continued sponsoring of terrorist groups. They seek our destruction and their own rise. Their realism only change their tactics and the timing according to their capabilities.

The idea, the perverted thinking has to change.

It is quite obvious that they will not succeed in international competition as they are today. Let them continue exporting terrorism and destabilize the region. So do we rather wait for them to become desperate as their oil lessens in importance? Or do we rather give them a 300 Megaton bargaining chip right away? If they don't succeed in acquiring a nuclear bomb now it'll be something else the next time. Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people.

It seems we're discussing whether to put two rounds in the chest or in the head.

Time will distribute death as it always has, something will inevitably come after the current regime and what is allowed during the presently hostile regime will blossom. The culture has to change.

Martin

[aktarian]

Perhaps not trigger it, but I would have no problem supporting it if it broke out spontaneously.

If it's open support it will allow regime to rally people around the flag and allow them to portrait insurgents as foreign mercenaries.

[NDD]

Well, then you need to put some teeth in your attempts.

In my attempts to what?

[aktarian]

In my attempts to what?

Not you as an individual but you as US. Sorry for not being clear.

If current atempts to pput check on Iranian troublemaking are toothless US should put more teeth into it.

[Robal2pl]

Hi evryone,
I think that Iran will not be a place of next small war , if we're talking about insurgection or guerilla warfare. Even if US will try to support something like this, there will be very small popular support if we mean pro - US, pro - democracy movement. (I suspect that only very small student groups would support ). This only will make current goverment more supported by people, you know why radical movements managed to gain so much poular support and managed to overthrow Shah. I think that Iran will be likely at war, because of its WMD program, but i don't think that there will be even ground war. I expect a series of air raids, to destroy installations.

Robal2pl