Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 88

Thread: Next Small War

  1. #21
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan

    Quote Originally Posted by NDD
    Negative, the Brits did that. Yes, we helped, but it was mostly them. And that is what happens when you try to nationalize somebody elses hard work.

    I don't think anything would have turned out much different if he had remained in power. The Islamists would have come for him eventually.
    Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.

    To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.

    We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SOTB
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Strickland
    Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.

    To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.

    We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.
    How is it an empty assertion? What would have stopped them?

    The Ayatollah Kashani helped put Mossadeq into power, they were already players in Iran even back then.
    Last edited by NDD; 10-18-2005 at 01:54 AM.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SOTB
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aktarian
    Well, then you need to put some teeth in your attempts.
    In my attempts to what?

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SOTB
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Strickland
    Eisenhower's biographer, Dean Acheson, and the CIA would all disagree, but yes, the momentum to get rid of Mossadeq came from the Brits. Kinzer's latest book clearly demonstrates the role of the US and CIA in Iran before turning our attention to toppling the regime in Guatemala.

    To say that an Islamist Regime would have eventually come to power regardless of western interference in internal Iranian politics, and the brutality of the Shah and the Savak is an empty assertion.

    We need to remember that the Iranians hold elections for president, unlike the Saudis or Pakistanis. They have a more democratic process that our allies in Jordan and Egypt.
    Mossadeq's removal was about Anglo-Iranian Oil - later BP. Mostly a Brit problem.

  6. #26
    Council Member aktarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    One more reason not to trigger an insurection to topple it.

  7. #27
    Council Member aktarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NDD
    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.

  8. #28
    Council Member Robal2pl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    13

    Default

    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

  9. #29
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aktarian
    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.

  10. #30
    Council Member aktarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
    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.

  11. #31
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Smile "Next" Small Wars Already Happening

    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

  12. #32
    Council Member GatorLHA2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    10

    Cool Iran Insurgency

    Quote Originally Posted by NDD
    As for the next small war, I am hoping for an insurgency in Iran. Pipe dream I know...
    It already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.

    "October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

    Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.

    Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SOTB
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GatorLHA2
    It already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.

    "October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

    Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.

    Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"
    I saw that as well. I can understand not wanting to admit any internal issues and keeping face, but the Brits? LOL

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SOTB
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aktarian
    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.

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    73

    Default

    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

  16. #36
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Post Mexico is already losing a small war

    Recent reports from Nuevo Laredo and Aculpoco suggest that the Zeta narco terrorist and other drug gangs are fighting turf battles that the government is unable to respond to. In Nuevo Laredo the combat has been open at times and the latest surviving chief of police has made it clear that he does not intend to enforce the rule of law when it comes to the drug war. A report today, that you can check on my blog, indicates several murders in Aculpoco including high police officials. At this point the Zetas control more real estate in Mexico than al Qaeda controls in Iraq. These guys are also targeting law enforcement officals in the US. They are already a paramilitary force with training received back when they were in the Mexican army.

    Recently the US and the State of Texas have beefed up law enforcment in the Laredo area, but I would not recomend going across the Rio Grande for adult beverages.

    While I agree that Chavez is a potential adversary, I think any conflict with him would be more conventional. He has real assets he has to protect.
    Last edited by Merv Benson; 10-19-2005 at 11:12 PM.

  17. #37
    Council Member aktarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NDD
    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.

  18. #38
    Council Member M. J. Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seoul, ROK
    Posts
    13

    Default Overlapping conflicts in South/SE Asia

    ALCON,
    I have been having some difficulty following this threat, but I have yet to see anny comments about the small wars occurring in the arc of conflict from Bangladesh to the Phillipines.
    If there is one place that small wars could lead to a larger conflict between China and the U.S. it is in this volatile reagion so vital to U.S. long term interests and security strategy.
    Semper Fidelis,

    M. J. Dougherty
    United States Marine Corps
    (W) michael.dougherty@korea.army.mil
    (H) mjdoug1@center.osis.gov

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10

    Default Caveat Emptor...

    Quote Originally Posted by GatorLHA2
    It (insurgency in Iran) already has according to an Israeli News Site DEBKA.

    "October 15, 2005, 6:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

    Ethnic Arabs in oil-rich Khuzestan have been waging an insurgency against Tehran for most of this year. In September, a series of blasts halted oil transfers from onshore wells.

    Iran accusing UK of setting bombs in Market"
    That's DEBKA, my friend. Rather large pinches of salt required.

    Two cents.

  20. #40
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default definition

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    I thought the USMC defined Small Wars as operations undertaken under executive authority, wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our Nation.

    -- Small Wars Manual, 1940

    It appears as if many of the previous responses refer to conflicts that are limited in size or scope, and thus improperly labeled Small Wars.
    Last edited by Strickland; 10-31-2005 at 12:34 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •