Israel
The Palestinians
Two States
Neither, some other State or people rule.
Neither, mutual destruction.
One State, two peoples
One State, one people (intermarriage)
David, remember in the old days of the anti-nuke movement when they used to say "better red than dead". Well that mind-set seems to have expanded to any aggressive activity by the US and the West.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
In this piece a preemptive strike becomes a war. How so?
In another post we hear if the US is part of any action against Iran the Taliban will be given ground to air missiles by Iran to shoot down helicopters in Afghanistan.
Maybe we should list all these wild scare mongering exaggerations?
Mike, young David has shown remarkable courage in taking and standing by his position on Pakistan.
Wouldn't it be nice if we saw something similar from the US and other NATO countries?
Lets not be sour about this. Let him take point if he has the balls for it and let the lesser mortals follow at a safe distance, yes?
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:
and here is Powell: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.
Regards1.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?
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 08-13-2010 at 01:07 AM.
false 'attack or surrender' argument
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.
Containment? Is that the best option as you see it? So you say let them develop a bomb and then we can all keep our fingers crossed that they are never going to use it? Not an intelligent strategy IMHO.
But I agree care should be taken to ensure that there will be no radiological fallout as a result of any preemptive strike in Iran ... noting that a strike against other suitable targets would also serve to force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.
Now this war you speak of? What war?
The strike takes place and then what? The Iranians or whats left of their naval capability lifts their army to attack the US homeland or Israel itself? Which US troops and where would br involved in this war?
Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.
Containment is the course of action requiring the least amount of courage.
We have had scares in the past over the possible use of nuclear weapons and surely we need no more? The situation we have at the moment with Pakistan is bad enough without adding two countries with certifiably insane leadership to the nuclear club (who will be quite likely to share there knowledge and possibly the bombs themselves with other equally insane organsiations and national leaderships.)
No more nukes should be the unwavering position. And as far as the deterrent against attempting to develop nuclear weapons it should be the clearly understood threat that if all else fails a military preemptive strike will be used. The US and Israel should make it very clear that they hope that negotiations and sanctions would prove successful and thus avert the need for a preemptive strike.
What negotiating position does the US administration think it has when the policy is "oh well if we can't stop them then the next administration will have to make sure they can contain the threat". Some legacy huh? Stupid strategy.
Is it valor we seek, or an outcome we can live with?
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.
What makes you think that "a strike against other suitable targets" would force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program? Such a strike might convince them to accelerate the program, as well as rallying support behind the regime and totally undercutting the Iranian political opposition.
No, the Iranians use anti-ship missiles on a few tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, and oil runs to $150/bbl or more overnight. That might not involve US troops, but it would involve US citizens; it would certainly be war, and the political/economic impact, inside the US and out of it, would be considerable, to say the least.
It's easy to say "we will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons". Do we have the capacity to prevent it? That's anything but certain at this point.
Iran on brink of nuclear weapon, warns watchdog
I guess the US and Israel should just surrender and be done with this whole matter. Who was the clown (head od state) who suggested that sanctions would work?Iran has passed a crucial nuclear threshold, weapons inspectors have warned, and could now go on to arm an atomic missile with relative ease.
So South Korea should surrender to the north, because they have a nuke?
Sanctions were never likely to work, but nobody had a better idea... so we're stuck with deterrence, which has worked rather well in the past. Not like it's game over or anything.
Sanctions were the best plan all these "smart" guys could come up with? LOL
Maybe one should realise that you can't play Russian Roulette with nukes (a la Cuba back then) unless both sides have nukes. (One wonders why that simple fact is so difficult for all these "smart" guys to figure out?)
Maybe its more a case of "we haven't got the courage to handle this problem so we will pass the ball to the next generation to deal with."
I haven't seen anyone here come up with anything better. There's not a great deal of courage in following a course of action with a very low probability of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences... that rather marks the point where courage crosses over into stupidity.
Maybe some of us need the courage to admit there are things we haven't the capacity to do. It's easy to bluster about what we should or shouldn't permit or allow, but declaring that we will not allow what we haven't the capacity to stop doesn't get us anywhere.
No.
First you decide on the end result you want then you make a plan to achieve that.
I say that the end result is that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Now there is the easy way to do that and then there is the hard way. Take your pick.
What I am suggesting in my comments on this thread is that there seem to be many people with no plan because they have no end result. They are just making it up as they go along.
It is important to have people with the courage of their convictions to act accordingly.
What the world needs is a leader with the character Billy Graham talks of:
... then there is the other type of courage Winston Churchill talks about (which may be more applicable to those of western powers involved in the nuclear arms race):Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.
... and by so doing proving beyond doubt that they are complete blithering idiots.Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.
Last edited by JMA; 09-11-2010 at 04:08 PM.
Perhaps the problem is
that, unfortunately, in democratic societies, the operative problem is not that many people have no plan -- it is that many people have competing or different plans. Trying to get many people to agree to A plan is usually quite painful if it can be achieved at all, trying to get a number of societies to agree to one is even more difficult...Yes, I agree -- I always categorize those who do not agree with MY superb solution as idiots or worse.... and by so doing proving beyond doubt that they are complete blithering idiots.
Thats pretty interesting from a Boydian point of view (moral,mental,physical levels of war) so if God were talking to Billy Grahm would he tell him to attack Iran? Why or Why not?
If that's what you say, then then you'd better go out and stop them. I shall observe with keen interest and no little amusement.
The world has changed, and "the Western world" - even if it functioned as a single entity, which it doesn't - no longer has the capacity to impose its will on everybody else whenever it chooses to do so, or to decree and enforce rules on what others may or may not do. Acknowledging that reality requires a bit of courage, of course, along with a bit of realism.
Leaping into action with a plan that has a minimal chance of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences crosses the frequently vague line between courage and stupidity.
What, by the way, is "the easy way"?
Last edited by Dayuhan; 09-11-2010 at 10:58 PM.
Yes the world has indeed changed.
It reminds one of when the British Empire ran out of steam. They also came up with a good number of reasons why this and that were no longer possible and could not be done. (They had the excuse that they had lost the top end of their gene pool during the two world wars.)
Now as part of the recent changes we see an exhausted US willingly giving up its sole superpower status and sliding backwards into the group of major powers. (There is an excuse for this?)
I guess the definition of courage in the new US is Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.
Plans are one thing but it is the desired end result that is important.that, unfortunately, in democratic societies, the operative problem is not that many people have no plan -- it is that many people have competing or different plans. Trying to get many people to agree to A plan is usually quite painful if it can be achieved at all, trying to get a number of societies to agree to one is even more difficult...Yes, I agree -- I always categorize those who do not agree with MY superb solution as idiots or worse.
The plan is merely the journey to reach that destination. If you have no desired destination then how can you possibly plan a journey?
And then of course you can't expect to be taken seriously if every 4 to 8 years you change the destination before the journey has been completed.
Did I do more than merely use a Billy Graham quote?
Yes, there is a reason: since the US is no longer the world's sole economic superpower, it cannot reasonably aspire to be the world's sole military superpower. It's no longer an affordable luxury.
The military options have been assessed and found wanting. Invasion is not realistically affordable, and would not be even in a world where we could simply go out and invade anyone who doesn't do what we want. Air attack is unlikely to achieve the desired objective and the range of potential - in fact probable - undesirable consequences is severe. No realistic option has been proposed.
It takes no courage whatsoever to propose impractical and pointless plans and accuse those who fail to adopt them of lacking courage. People who bluster about what others ought to do don't have to face the consequences of ill-advised action.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks