Oh, it's going to happen. We ARE going to war with Iran. Bush has made it absolutely clear that he, as commander in chief, has the authority to do this. And that Congress has no role whatsoever in such decisions.
Bush and his little circle of neocons want this war BAD. At least as bad as they wanted war with Iraq. Cheney, in particular, is champing at the bit because war with Iran will provide at least some pretext for using nuclear weapons (in the form of tactical nuclear bunker busters). Cheney has been itching to use nukes on somebody--anybody--since the 1970s.
Bush sees war with Iran as the only way left for him to cement his place in history. And don't forget that the people whispering in his ear are the same bunch of incompetents who advised him into Iraq. Even now, those people are telling Bush that we will be greeted as liberators.
So, yeah--war with Iran is a spectacularly stupid idea. And we, unfortunately, have a spectacularly stupid president.
I keep being left with the question of "going to war with what army?" I mean, we really don't have anything left, do we? And everything that's already in action is on its 5th tour.
Is it possible Bush has, ironically, been reduced to Sadaam Hussein's position of having to talk big just to keep up appearances?
Two other stupid things about war with Iran:
1. More weapons are probably coming from Saudi Arabia than Iran. Moreover, since these weapons are going to Sunni, they are more likely to be the ones used on American troops.
2. Iran's interest in Iraq should actually match ours. We want a stable government. Any stable government will be Shi'a led. Iran wants a stable Shi'a neighbor.
In general, the impending war with Iran stems largely from administration blindness to the Sunni/Shia split.
These points have been made before, but they should be made again.
The thing is, we can start a war, and do a lot of damage, with just an air force, and we still have one of those. We can't, I don't think, get any non-horrifyingly awful result from a war with just an air force, but we can get into one.
I keep being left with the question of "going to war with what army?"
With the air force, obviously. We Americans love to drop bombs.
I can't imagine what would happen if we actually used nuclear weapons.
#2--don't think for a minute that lack of men or logistics willl slow Bush down. He doesn't live in this reality--in his world, things happen simply because he demands they do. Recall that his answer to Pelosi's question about how this surge will succeed was something like, "It will because I told the generals that it has to."
Slightly off-topic---I know that tags are really not part of the Unfogged Aesthetic, but in the case of everyone's Iran War posts it seems like it would be really great to be able to get them all in once place. And iran site:unfogged.com seems like overkill, whatwith ogged having plenty of non-war-like things to say about Iran and frequent off topic black humor in the comments. What would the site admins say is the best way to gather all these posts in one pile? Do you lot have a list somewhere?
Lovin' Mr. B, but, gawd, the Air Force should really be folded into some other service. I trust those guys not very much.
Sending in the air force to keep people from shipping IEDs to Iraq doesn't really follow. If we wanted to use the air force, shouldn't we be playing up the nuke angle as #1?
What you can get away with when you have a 90% approval rating shortly after a national tragedy SHOULD be pretty different from what you can get away with when you have a 28% approval rating and the country thinks the latest national tragedy was your fault.
But then, there is the 'batshit fucking crazy' angle which everyone is rightly bringing up.
Anyway, one can hope.
8: I don't know what Ile is proposing, but I stand athwart history and object. No tags! No lists! CHANGEBAD!
I'm still largely in denial on this just because, as I said in a comment a few weeks ago, it's so balls-to-the-wall bonkers. What could we possibly accomplish by blowing the hell out of them? Is it an excuse to use a light nuke as a way to assert our dominance world-wide? Is it a way to create tremendous chaos on the theory that the chaos causes Muslims to fight one another and they think this keeps them from attacking us? Is it a theory that a Middle East with no Shia governments is friendlier to us? Is it to perpetuate war for war's sake, or for the various psychological advantages they think it gives them in domestic politics?
I can get, intellectually, any of those reasons in that I can conceptualize them and imagine the sort of completely fucked up psyche that would think they're reasonable but I can't actually think of them as reasonable and in any of those cases it seems like the obvious results (I refuse to use the term "fallout") are far more harmful to us than any bizarre and irrational faith in an unlikely short-term advantage. It's just, like... I can't wrap my brain around it. It hurts when I try.
Yeah, we can bomb the crap out of them, sure, we can do that to anybody, but would that even work to topple a government?
would that even work to topple a government?
Is that a goal? Are we going to reinstall a Shah?
re: 12
The 'they are mad evil bastards' explanation seems the most parsimonious.
9: Since the gent is at work, I'll chime in and say that I think the AF isn't the problem; it's the Rumsefelds of the world, who have no concept of the hearts and minds, that are the problem.
Yeah, we can bomb the crap out of them, sure, we can do that to anybody, but would that even work to topple a government?
Oh, sure it would -- if we were willing to do enough damage, I'm sure we could destabilize their government. God alone knows what would replace it. But entirely destroying Tehran is a solved problem; I can't imagine that the government of Iran would remain unchanged through that.
That was meant to be bitter, and came out sounding flip about the prospect of leveling a city. I assume we aren't planning to do any such thing, and dearly hope I'm right.
Pathetic, shameful whoring: I just got a couple ads (now running over at my place) about legislation Dodd's sponsoring to restore Habeus, and apparently some Kerry plan to introduce a law giving a deadline for getting out of Iraq. Both ads ask for your email, so they're obviously some kind of "sign up so we can send you spam" stuff, but if you click through there's a li'l info about the legislation.
It ain't going to happen. I'm willing to entertain bets on that.
The administration is in a much more adverse position than it was when it convinced the country to go to war against Iraq. Congress, which would have to approve the action (even without a declaration of war, Congress still has to fund it), is set against it. Even if there was a Republican majority in the Senate, I don't think he could get approval. And the afore-mentioned 28% approval rating means Bush can't use public opinion to sway the Congress.
The Economist had a good leader on this last week (with the great subhed: "Why George Bush should resist a Wagnerian exit from the White House.").
No, 16 is right: we can "pacify" a country with the AF. But that does fuck-all to rebuild, or to do anything other than suppress their military and make the people terrified and resentful.
19: What part of any of that practically keeps them from ordering bombers to Tehran? They probably couldn't keep it going for long in the face of resistance from Congress, but I can't see what'd keep them from starting an attack other than deciding it was a bad idea.
If the administration isn't gunning for a war with Iran, why is it inventing evidence about the origins of IEDs? Why create these lies?
Clearly I'm no strategist or tactician, but it seems a little dicey to me: we bomb the crap out of them, oil goes through the roof, our economy turns up its own ass and there are still a (metric?) ton of people there with weapons and training and no one left to sign the checks because we fired a "tactical" nuke down their leadership's throats without actually invading. It seems to so self-evidently create far more problems than it solves. And sure, I could buy that there are psychopaths in the administration, but all of them? And in the Pentagon? And all so irrational as to fail to see any negative consequences? It's just... it's crazy. I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue, I'm saying I can't grasp it. I can't express the way I feel when I even try to think about it.
On the other hand, a year ago I was convinced we were going to go to war with Iran in a full-on ground invasion as an excuse to pull our troops out of Iraq. Maybe I'm simply losing my ability to flex my brain into the twisted shapes of those in the administration.
re: 23
Yeah, but they've already done it. In Iraq. Which was just as crazy.
I, too, have to repeat myself a bit - the most awful thing about this, to me, is that the best thing we could do for our long-term interests in the Middle East is to improve relations with Iran. The young people there are a big, fat, golden opportunity for long-term influence in the region, and all we'd have to do to get in a useful position there is, like, try a little, and maybe not drop a bunch of bombs on them.
If this administration is a story of wasted opportunities, this would be perfect climactic finish. God, I hate these people.
Incidentally, Arthur Silber has been writing up a storm about this recently.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/02/all-lies-all-time.html
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/02/excuse-me-while-i-scream-for-few.html
Iran's interest in Iraq should actually match ours. We want a stable government. Any stable government will be Shi'a led. Iran wants a stable Shi'a neighbor.
Can we jump on this a bit more? Even if we take the administration's intelligence at face value, Iran is not working unambiguously against our interests in the region. They're not sunshine and allies, but if we decide to war with Iran, we're doing so even as they're friendly with factions we're friendly with.
This is not a civil war with clear sides.
9: Since the gent is at work, I'll chime in and say that I think the AF isn't the problem; it's the Rumsefelds of the world,
Mine is an entirely unfair criticism of a large organization with diverse views, etc. But it was initially informed by Halberstam's Best and Brightest; apparently, there is a strain of thought that says the AF has a tendency to write checks that the Army and Marines have to cover. But I really do think my criticism's ill-informed and unfair; I just still have the prejudice.
The Economist had a good leader on this last week (with the great subhed: "Why George Bush should resist a Wagnerian exit from the White House.").
As long as I'm letting my prejudices do the the talking: fuck the Economist. I trust no one who takes their political or policy bearings from that increasingly right-wing set of fatuous fucks.
First let me state that any attack against Iran is a bad idea because of the long term implications outlined above. That having been said, I think that there is a misunderstanding of the US military capabilities in the region. We are only "tied down" in Iraq because we want to be. The activity of all of the different parts of the insurection would be a detail to be handled, but not sufficient to prevent an all out invasion of Iran, which is what our forces are designed to do and are very good at. The question would then be, as it is in Iraq, now what? We've destroyed their army, killed or captured their leaders and ? Same problem, only larger.
but I can't see what'd keep them from starting an attack other than deciding it was a bad idea.
Well, sure, but by that logic the only thing that is keeping the US from bombing Canada, France or the UK is that those would also be bad ideas.
The coalition of the afraid and angry that allowed us to attack Iraq 15 months after 9/11 no longer exists - both in supporters within the administration (Cheney's relatively isolated, compared to 2002), external supporters, and those who were willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt on matters of national security.
As long as I'm letting my prejudices do the the talking: fuck the Economist. I trust no one who takes their political or policy bearings from that increasingly right-wing set of fatuous fucks.
...but at the same time (or maybe because of that), it's an excellent barometer for what the non-insane right thinks on any given issue.
We are only "tied down" in Iraq because we want to be. The activity of all of the different parts of the insurection would be a detail to be handled, but not sufficient to prevent an all out invasion of Iran, which is what our forces are designed to do and are very good at.
Good god, man, look at the logistics. The Shiites have but to cut our supply lines from Kuwait and we're looking at a fighting withdrawal or worse.
It's times like this that I'm grateful that Reza Pahlavi is a self-evident twit.
All this talk and no data?
Right now betting markets figure there's about a 22% chance that either America or Isreal will order airstrikes against Iran by the end of the year. (And a 2.5% chance it will happen before the end of March.)
Personally, I see it as *extremely* unlikely we'll attack Iran unlaterally. I was worried about this before the November elections, but no longer. But I do still fear that Isreal might get nervous and, with our covert prompting, launch a strike. And that we'd then be "pulled" in in Israel's defense. And that all hell might thereafter break loose.
22% sounds about right to me.
The LGM gang has talked about the Air Force at some length -- this one is the money shot in terms of the bad, bad results of a service branch's money and influence being dependent on promoting air power as a cure for all ills.
It's hard for me to see what sorts of plausible military options the U.S. has at this point. I've tried to point out that the best thing for the U.S. to do at this point is just to STFU, since complaining about Iran when it isn't in a position to do anything about it just makes the U.S. look weak.
I've had my money on "They won't bomb Iran, but they'll do all sorts of nasty covert shit" for a long time. I admit that recent news has made me a bit less confident that the Bush administration will show so much restraint.
32. That's what I'm talking about. I think the threat of the Shiites cutting off the logistics train is overly hyped. It certainly exists, but assumes coordination with Iran, which is not evident.
I've assumed for a while that Iran has been running a network of agents and clients in Iraq and that its role has been to steer gently political developments, to give early warning of US actions against Iran, and to stir up bloody revenge should the US move against Iran.
I'm not sure what exactly would be in it for the Iraqi Shia to be the agents of Iran's revenge, but I bet the motivations will be found.
an excellent barometer for what the non-insane right thinks on any given issue.
Can this possibly represent a large enough audience to support a subscription magazine?
It certainly supports why I read the leaders. The rest of it covers enough of a variety of topics (including in areas I'd like to think of myself as being well-read in) that after flipping through it, I feel like I have a vague idea for what's going in the world.
Like the WSJ's conservatism, if you take the Economist's libertarianism in stride, it's a decent general-news magazine.
Back to Iran, this stuff is interesting.
It certainly exists, but assumes coordination with Iran, which is not evident.
I suspect it'd become a lot more evident tootie sweetie if the US actually launched a land invasion of Iran.
if the US actually launched a land invasion of Iran.
But it can't. It just can't. Not even in the wildest dreams of the hawkiest hawks.
That's what I'm talking about. I think the threat of the Shiites cutting off the logistics train is overly hyped. It certainly exists, but assumes coordination with Iran, which is not evident.
In that eventuality, I'd hope that you were right, for the sake of our army, but when I look at the map and see the one highway from Kuwait, and the one port onto the gulf, I'm not so blithely optimistic.
A part of me wondered over lunch whether Bush has decided to apply one of the common schemes of intervention - especially among "tough love" types - to foreign policy and that he thinks the solution really is to just blow the top off the whole situation and see if the victim populations have the "gumption" to put things back together in a way that's more suitable to the rest of us. Y'know, with enough bombs he can induce a "nowhere to go but up" moment for regimes he feels have to be changed at any cost and justifies it with a belief that any outcome whatsoever is preferable to the current state of affairs.
In truth, I still just can't buy it. ttaM, you are quite right in that they've already done this and are still doing it in Iraq and having it put that way gives me another cold shudder, but I like to think someone in the administration has managed to notice what happened there. Before the war I was one of the dupes who figured it would be over in a month and we'd install some dictator more to our liking but that it would be largely bloodless (I was still against it because it was wrong regardless of how it turned out). I think lots of people, pro or con as to the war itself, thought the same thing. Then it seemed to me largely to be whether or not might makes right. I prefer to think that there are war planners who have seen what is happening in Iraq and realize that Iran knocks pre-war Iraq into a cocked hat any day of the week and realize what a terrible disaster it would be.
I'm with TLL: I have a great deal of faith in our military's ability to do that which it is primarily (in my understanding) designed to do, which is fuck people up. It's the "what comes next" that is hard.
I'm really hoping that military will sandbag Bush. I hope Congress fights too, but I'm not sure they have the determination.
What I've feared for 10-11 months now is that the Bush people will realize that they've dug themselves in a deep hole and have no plausible way out. I then see them trying some desperate long shot thing, hoping that that will confuse things enough that they are able to get back in the game.
I think that it's a mistake to ask what rational purpose a war could have, or to ask if we can possibly win anything. I think that everything this administration is completely ruled by domestic public opinion and a domestic "reform" agenda.
Oh, sure it would -- if we were willing to do enough damage, I'm sure we could destabilize their government.
No, 16 is right: we can "pacify" a country with the AF. But that does fuck-all to rebuild, or to do anything other than suppress their military and make the people terrified and resentful.
Am I missing some big precedent here? When has air power alone made a government topple? Japan and Germany were exhausted conventionally. We did everything to North Vietnam short of nukes, to no effect besides the destructive. Miloseveic changed course, but wasn't ousted until significantly later.
My understanding of the lessons of history was that the more relentless the bombing, the more staunchly a population resolves against its attackers. (Occupation being another kettle of fish entirely.)
Of course air power works. That's why the United States immediately re-examined its policies toward Muslim countries in the aftermath of 9/11.
48: Seconded. Iran is the only lever left to pull that isn't marked 'retreat'. Iran is conveniently near Iraq, and would give a continued army presence in Iraq additional justification (to deal with fallout from Iran, duh). This may be insane, but insane things do happen. However, the signals are mixed. I don't know the ins and outs of the military situation, but there's not said to be a naval build-up worth the name. OIF had something like five carriers in support, whereas today (and for the near term) there are at most two in the neighbourhood. On the other hand, two carriers are a significant force. As LB says, the emphasis could be placed on the air force contribution and the whole thing sold to the public as a 'clean' precision strike. It seems quite possible that there are people in the USAF leadership who are keen to show what their outfit can do.
And someone in the US military is briefing the press with these IED stories: they must mean something by it. But maybe they're not carrying people with them. In 2002-3 there was much more credit available.
Maybe the outcome will be a half-cocked military strike, launched under a divided leadership. That would be interesting.
And yes, ironically, attacking Iran while ruling Iraq does echo Saddam.
We can call it Iran-Iraq War II, or IIWII.
I've seen several blog posts in the last couple of days indicating that a third carrier group may be on its way shortly. Did anyone bother to follow the links to the actual news stories?
I thought I'd read this story before! Here, I found it.
51:Hah! two Carrier Groups and 1 1/2 ESG's thank you. The Boxer (or is it the Boston) is almost there.
And it aint as if the Ronald Reagan and Kitty Hawk are in Barcelona, for Pete's sake
ESG's are Expeditionary Strike Groups designed to assist marines in amphibious landings or boardings
I find military porn to be an adequate expression of my sexuality.
54: There was one in Newsweek.
How's that whole "surge" thing panning out, BTW?
54: The Ronald Reagan is in 7th Fleet, supposedly relieving the KItty Hawk. But the Kitty Hawk looks suspiciously unrelieved.
Carrier Groups have their own websites. Suggest you just Google:"Ronald Reagan". The link will there with a little scrolling.
49: I don't think they care if the Iranian govt is toppled. I think they're going to go after the centrifuges with air (and possibly some elite ground units), declare a victory no matter what the real effects, and leave the mess for the next adminstration to worry about.
Near as I can tell, the US military can blow its way in and out of damn near anywhere if no one cares how much damage it does along the way.
Say... how are Ogged's nunchuck-skills?
If that Farsi-speaking ninja death-squad talk continues, ogged and other Iranian-Americans aren't getting anywhere near their native country.
Near as I can tell, the US military can blow its way in and out of damn near anywhere if no one cares how much damage it does along the way.
Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.
Maybe Buck Turgidson looks like the hero of the piece if you're drunk enough.
But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
If the mullahs want trouble, let them try to come after our precious bodily fluids.
65: I thought mullahs were generally held to be against that sort of thing.