Reply #7: Here's some alternative commentary. . .

[Journeyman]

This is an article by Martin van Creveld of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel’s most prominent military historian. He is "the only non-American author on the U.S. Army’s required reading list for officers."

The article is titled, Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle. It can be read in its entirety here: http://www.forward.com/articles/knowing-why-not-to-bomb-iran-is-half-the-battle/

A pertinent excerpt:


The second question that needs to be asked is whether bombing Iran’s nuclear installations can successfully be accomplished. Israel’s strike in 1981 against Iraq’s Osirak reactor was successful and is often cited as a model of its kind. But since then, of course, many things have changed.

As the world’s sole superpower, the United States has at its disposal forces and weapons far superior to anything that existed a quarter century ago. On the other side of the coin, the Iranian nuclear program is much larger, more dispersed, better protected and better camouflaged than Iraq’s program was.

Most important of all, the vital element of surprise will be absent. The Israeli strike owed much of its success to the fact that it came like a bolt from the blue. By contrast, Washington has been publicizing its intentions for months, if not years. A precision-guided surgical air strike may take out some vital installations and set back the program — or it may not.

Perhaps more troubling than either of these outcomes is the possibility that the attackers, trying to hit camouflaged targets said to be buried deep underground, will not know whether or not they have succeeded. As a result, they may have to go on bombing for much longer than the few days Pentagon sources say the operation might last.


Edited to insure it is read as the polite post it is intended to be.