|
Edited on Tue Dec-19-06 10:22 PM by Trajan
Much has been said about the US naval buildup near Iran in the Persian Gulf, and it is important to note a few facts that might clear the air of speculation surrounding this provocative decision.
I am of the mind that this is nothing more than old-fashioned gunboat 'diplomacy', and that it is not intended to provoke direct conflict with Iran, but to only puff up the egos of pResident codpiece and his neocon minions ... a pretense of a 'tough' posture ...
That being said; it could escalate through accident (second-worst case), or through an intentional decision of neocon policy (worst case) .... Either way, IF such an escalation occurred, it would have catastrophic consequences for the region, for american foreign policy, for american military stature and effectivness, and for our international standing, for decades to come ...
I do not think the US Military will permit that escalation, and here is why:
1) The Irani military is much stronger than the withered and reduced forces of the Iraqi Republican guard, and hence, would withstand a direct assault of an invasionary force far longer, and with far greater loss to the invading troops than that which was seen in the Iraq 'Cakewalk' of March 2003.
Furthermore, the Irani military are a tighter force; more disciplined, more fanatically dedicated to their national cause than the deteriorated conscripts of Iraq ... They have more powerful mechanized divisions, with a stronger command structure that has not been hampered in the purchase of third party communications systems that could withstand the first volleys expected in an invasion ... With a standing army of nearly one million troops, they present a challenge that I am sure has the Joint Chiefs wringing their hands in concern ... This would be much harder than Iraq, by far ....
2) The US Military with it's co-called 'coalition' forces combined are at this time stymied in Iraq; unable to produce longstanding results with a force of approximately 150,000 total troops, and they seem unable to develop a plan that could solidify whatever 'gains' they intend to achieve with the number of troops they have committed to this effort. In short, they are 'tapped out' in Iraq, and unable to change the situation on the ground there to any degree.
Knowing this: How can they possibly develop a force capable of invading and holding territory in Iran ? .... The US military is stretched to it's limit, and cannot possibly 'grow' in the amount of time it would take to effectively counter an Irani movement towards standing forces already in the gulf region. The Iran military is poised, on their own ground, not far from the shared border with Iraq ... They would be able to amass their own forces to charge within Iraq as a counter action against the any US provocation .... and if they did, what could the US do ? ..... Move US forces to meet them in eastern Iraq ? .... what then happens in Iraq ? .... who is watching their back ? .... Do the shiite militias in Iraq take potshots at them as they move against Iran ? .... Do those militias move to consolidate control of the iraqi areas left open by departing US forces ? .... Do they join forces with Iran ???? ... Does the US lose the ground they had already fought so hard to keep as they try to react to an Irani incursion ? ....
3) One gambit may be the inclusion of Israeli troops and material into the force picture, but this would be a choice rife with dangerous possibilities for the Israeli state as well ... Consider that the Israeli military has been structured for the defense of its homeland borders, and that even an extension into Lebanon was a difficult bend in it's overall military strategy ... The IDF are not ready to romp across arab territory and join a fight with the US in far off Persia: what kind of vacuum would exist within Israel ? .... How exposed would it then be for invasive attack by Syria ? ... How much of its troop strength could be siphoned off to join a US/Irani juggernaut without degrading it's ability to defend itself against homeland attack ? .....
There is much bluster and breast beating about 'strength' when it comes to talk in diplomatic spheres, and in national councils where such talk is politically motivated to show strength in rhetoric ... But generals have an obligation to be pragmatic and realist ... They CANNOT proceed with the rhetorical bluster of a political movement if they cannot manage affairs on the battlefield ...
Israel would balk at joining a US war against Iran ....
4) An all out war between the US and Iran, mighty Persia, could have disastrous consequences for Israel, and for the region at large. IF the US and or Israel felt that they were losing the initiative on the battlefield, then the resort to nuclear weapons will become more attractive. IF the US or Israel were to actually detonate nuclear weapons in Iran, not only would it kill millions of Iranis directly, it would poison that region for millenae .. The extent of the radioactive degradation is unpredictable, but there is no doubt it would be as extensive as the battle is desperate. IF US forces get bogged down, we might expect the US to throw diplomacy and care to the wind, and regain the initiative by selecting both strategic targets against Irani weapons sources and command structures, and tactical targets against Irani troops in formations against US forces ...
When men are in such battles that they fear losing, they toss caution to the wind, and bring out the 'big guns' .... We could expect that both strategic and tactical nukes would be used to offset the asymmetrical force picture which might exist in an Irani battlefield. The effects of those nukes on the direct areas would be obvious, but the effects over an extended area are indeterminate, but even so, those effects will be real, and will last many lifetimes .... IF that poison blankets the region, as it might, it could spell the end of the various nearby states ... including Israel ...
This scenario ignores the possibility of return fire from a nuclear capable arab state, like Pakistan, for instance ... or a rogue nuke made available through other means .... IF such a weapon(s) is detonated in or near Israel, then Katy-Bar-The-Door; the area WILL be uninhabitable for centuries ....
Impossible ? .... hardly .... I am sure the Joint Chiefs fear this most .... They aren't stupid ...
5) What if: The Neocons are the primary movers of this juggernaut, and they have the pResident's ear ?
What if those Neocons are promoting this action in the WH, but DON'T have the concurrence of the Joint Chiefs ? ..
What if the Pentagon careerists are saying 'Oh no .. not again !' ?
What if the 2, 3 and 4 star Generals refuse to follow this line of action ?
I would have never imagined it before .. but we might, we just might, see a military coup against a maniacal US administration bent on satisfying their own wild-eyed dreams of military success on a battlefield where the generals only see abject failure ....
Would the generals follow through with a defective strategy ? ... Would they commit their own forces, their own troops, to a plan they feel is irrational and dangerous ? ... Or would they say 'Enough!' ?
Either course is frightful for citizens .... Either path is unknown territory for a nation just over 200 years old without a history of military takeover of civilian political structures ...
-----
I am no military expert, by far, but it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see there is the possibility for unintended consequences and miscalculation to develop from such a choice as has been made for naval movements in the Persian Gulf ... To bring battle to Iran would unleash a sequence of events that could have catastrophic consequences for the Middle East at large, and would alter the landscape of the region, and the course of our lives, for years to come ...
Now ... Just what the FUCK are they doing ? ....
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
