Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 211 To 220 Of 397 Comments
AMERICA COMING TO ITS OWN CONSENSUS ABOUT THE ISG
I should clarify my previous post. The reason I think such a large number of troops from the US and its allies will be necessary to implement the optimal solution is becuase at some point Russia and China may enter the war. As it stands right now, they would not be on our side. The military capabilities need to be adequate to handle this, as well to provide security for the new ME governments.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 8.12.2006 @ 21:07
Rick
A massive refugee crisis is of no concern to Iran or Syria. After an American withdrawl, they will deal ruthlessly and efficently with a "refugee" or anyone else who gives them any trouble. They will crush the problem with the use of massive and decisive military force. They will not worry about "collateral damage" the way Americans do. They will not do any soul searching over how many innocent bystanders they kill. They will act proactively to deal with any threat to their hegemony and it will be done with extreme force. In other words, they will do what the Americans should have done when they invaded Iraq. We should have commited overwhelming force and we should have used it decisively. We did not commit enough troops and the ones we commited have not been used decisively enough. The msm and their supporters assume the problem is we used to much force. They are incorrect. The problem is we did not use enough force.
The enemy we face today is far more dangerous than the ones we faced during WWII. We should treat it as such. Anyone who thinks Iran or Syria will assist us in stabilizing Iraq because they are worried about a refugee crisis is deluding themsleves.
The optimal solution to this threat to the survival of our civilization is to properly define the enemy. The enemy is not "terrorism" or "terror" as the President and others have defined it. Terrorism and terror are merely military methods and they are very effective ones. The actual enemy are those who operate in the name of Islam to try and conquer the world. Right now the primary countries are Iran and Syria. Also any country who aids and abets Iran and Syria will need to be considered an enemy. Instead of declaring war on "terrorism" war should be declared on Iran, Syria, any nation who conducts war against the US in the name of Islam, and any nation who assists those nations.
After we have identified the enemy, the country should be placed on a war footing. This means we will need a draft. The US and its Western allies will probably need to place about 40,000,000 people under arms in order to win the war. Also, equipment, transport, and all other logistics that go with this large force wil be needed. The size and capabilities of the Air Force and the Navy will need to be enhanced significantly. The nuclear arsenal will need to be upgraded. In addition to this, our human intellegence will need to be improved significantly.
Is this tough medicine? Absolutely!! Leaders should be frank enough to explain to the American people the nature and the magnitude of the threat. They should explain that, in the event of failure, the best that can result will be the US loses its place as one of the most influential countries on earth. Also, in the event of failure, the very survival of the US will be very precarious.
Unfortunately we cannot implement the optimal solution right now. Even if we could, I seriously doubt many people would trust either President Bush or British Prime Minister Tony Blair to lead this effort.
Since the politcal will to implement the optimal solution is non existant, policy makers must select poliies that have a chance to work. It seems to me that we should have no problem finding people within Iraq who are opposed to Iran and Al Qaeda. We should identify these groups and militias and work with them to contain and roll back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Part of the strategy used to win the Cold War was containment. Perhaps it can work here. In any event, Iran MUST be contained. America's influence in the world and probably its very survival depends on containing Iran and its supporters. This policy is somehting we can probably do and if it is properly implemented it has a good chance to work.
To any one who thinks Iran or Syria are going to help us with Iraq because they are worried about a refugee crisis or a failed state on their border, I would very respectfully say, "try again please."
If this post comes across as being a bit harsh or offensive, please accept my apologies. I simply could not think of another way to state the points. Hopefully with practice I can be more articulate.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 8.12.2006 @ 19:18
DEMOCRATS HANGING TOUGH IN LEBANON
We would not be having this problem with Lebanon right now had Israel been allowed to finish the job against Hezbollah last summer. I estimate it would have taken Israel four to six months to defeat Hezbollah. Unfortunately the Bush administration capitulated before the UN and signed on to a cease fire. Even before that happened, I had begun to suspect that President Bush is fundamentally unserious about fighting Islamofascism. That act was the final straw. After that, I knew beyond a doubt that he is fundamentally unserious.
Had Israel been allowed to complete the job against Hezbollah we would currently either be celebrating a crushing defeat for the forces of Islamic terrorism or the Hezbollah forces of Islamic terrorims would be very near a crushing defeat.
After this defeat of Hezbollah the March 14th forces would have had breathing room to establish a peaceful democracy. Hezbollah accuses the Lebanese government of siding with Israel and the US. Officials of this same government could not wait to get to microphones to condemn Israel when they attacked Hezbollah, in Lebanon. In trying to extract the cancer of Hezbollah from Lebanon, the Israelis were really fighting for the freedom of Lebanon, as well as the freedom of Israel. As such, the Lebanese government should have been Israel's most vocal supporter. This causes me to wonder just how serious the March 14th forces are, however, for their actions they can probably be forgiven. After all, these people have fed lies about the Jews for decades. This has caused them to have an irrational hatred of Israel. That probably cannot be overcome over nignt.
I hope Presient Bush and the United States gvoernment will find their back bone soon. If we will stand with the March 14th forces here, they can be successful and we probably should get an ally from this. If we can push back Hezbollah, we may yet achieve a victory in the GWOT.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 9.12.2006 @ 13:11
Nikolay
Thank you for your thoughts and for the links you provide. The Israeli specialist nails when he points out that it would be difficult, if not impossible to trust the Americans right now. He or she can only conclude that their is no support for them among America and the West. My considered opinion on why we have an incosistency between Bush's speeches and the words of colin Powell is because the American government has never been quite sure what it wants to accomplish. On the one hand we have many of Bush's advisors who would go to the mat for Iranian dissidents and on the other hand we have people like Colin Powell who have a different approach to foreign policy than the President's speech writers and many of his advisors. This leads to wildly inconsistent policies. In summary, Aemrican foreign policy is a mangled mess. This has to change.
The first step is to properly define the enemy. Once this is done, policy makers must decide on strategies to defeat the enemy that are workable and that they can all agree on.
As I recall, the way Raegan brought down the Soviet Union was by supporting dissidents within those countries. From the pressure applied, this caused the Soviet Union and its satellites to collapse. The Israeli specialist nails it when he points out that this type of effort is needed today. Frankly, it is the only method that we can actually implement today. The Western world and the US lack the stomach to undertake the major effort that a war with Iran would entail.
We should immediately get to work on an approach similar to the one employed by Ronald Raegan to get rid of the Iranian government and get rid of that regime we must.
The Islamic ability and willingness to build a world wide caliphate is no derangment. It is very real. It is not Muslims who are evil. The evil ones are those who use Islam as a basis for their goal of world domination. These are the people who insist on a literal interpretation of their religous religous text. The threat is very real and it must be confronted. I estimate the US and its allies have a five year window to deal with Iran, Syria, and the Communist allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. Our enemies are growing stronger literally by the week. There lacks a fundamental desire in the West to undertake a major military build up. In five years, we may well find ourselves facing lop sided military disadvantages with our enemies. We may have less time than that. Five years is likely the maximum amount of time we have. If our enemies are not contained or eliminated within five years, we will probably have no choice but all out war and by that time it may be to late.
I agree with you that talking to Iran and Syria simply so they can rescue us in Iraq would be wrong. I also hope the Democrats don't choose that option. The way to rescue ourselves from the situation in Iraq is to properly identify the enemy, commit the corect number of troops to destroy them, and pursue the enemy with ruthless efficiency.
If we are not going to commit more troops, we should find militias and groups within Iraq who will help us oppose Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq. With this method we should be able to contain Al Qaeda and Iran and, in time, roll back their influence in Iraq.
I'm not sure what policie the Democrats will adopt. I think I can be sure that their approach will be less confrontational. In public, at least, they will make nice. In other words, unless there is an attack on the American home land or on American interests outside of the Middle East by Iran or its proxies, there are unlikely to be any "axis of evil" speeches by the Democrats and any confrontation with Iran will be done by proxies.
I hope and pray that the Democrats do understand that we need to confront Iran. For now I'm assuming they will confront Iran. I also think it is higly likely they will use a less confrontational approach when dealing with Iran than the Bush Administration has. Of course, if Iran or its proxies attack the American home land, all bets could be off. Such an event would change everything.
America is my country and the Democrats are my leaders. I will work to impress upon them the need to get rid of this regime, as I tried to impress upon the former Republcan leadership of the need to eliminate the Iranian regime. If a less confrontational approach will work, lets do it. The survival of America and the survival of Western civilization may well depend upon containing or removing the Iranian regime. Time grows short.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 10.12.2006 @ 18:43
DevX
Ultimately whether or not the US will have permanent military bases in Iraq or not will be up to the Iraqi government. If we would commit enough troops to actually provide security for the average Iraqi, we would probably get more support for such a policy assuming that is what we want. In any event, assuming that is what we want the best place for them would probably be in Kurdish areas. The Kurds are generally more friendly to the Americans than the Sunni or Shia and they will likely need some type of American prescense as a defense against the Sunni, the Shia, and against Turkey.
Your analysis that a war cannot be fought with a kinder and gentler method is spot on. Wars are to be fought with extreme force in the manner that WWII was fought.
Americans do not understand the the Islamofascist enemy along with its allies in Russia and China pose an existential threat to the US. They don't understand this because their elected leaders have not told them the unvarnished truth. There is little courage among American leaders to deal with hard issues. This will need to change. I hope and pray it changes before a WMD attacks occurrs on American soil.
As it stands right now, we can win this, if we get the proper commitment from the American government and the American people, however, if we wait to long to deal decisively with this threat it may be to late. Getting the support of the American people can be achieved, if only we had politicians who had the courage to face problems head on and be truthful to the electorate. If only.....
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 9.12.2006 @ 12:29
Nikolay
I hit the post button by accident. I think the US was at least tolerant of the Taliban prior to 911, possibly even friendly to them. Obviously the attacks of 911 changed that.
I see your point about Iraq being the first step to Iran. Putting oneself in the shoes of Amadinejad, the Iranian government, and the Syrian government they know that, if the US and its allies could have achieved a democratic Iraq that is allied with the US this would have been an existential threat to their regimes. This is coupled with the fact that Bush referred to them in his "axis of evil" speech. From the perspective of the Iranian and Syrian governments, it would have been only natural that they would want to try and to all they could to destabilize the young democracy in Iraq. The fact that the Bush administration did not seem to anticipate this fact when they planned the invasion and its aftermath is very likely criminal negligence.
Now personally I think the current regimes in Iran and Syria are evil and any thing possible should be done to remove them. The Democrats will likely use a less confrontational approach, in their rhetoric, than has been employed to date. If the less confrontational approach can inspire the Iranian people to rise up against that government, this would be great. The 1968 "leftist" approach you mention actually has merit. The key, as with any policy, will be the execution.
From what I can tell, you are likely spot on about the unpopularity of Amadinejad, however, the Iranian government closely guards what information comes out of that country. Its difficult to be sure precisely what is going on there. It does seem, from my reading about Iranian dissidents, if pressure were applied properly that government could be replaced and it could be done without any direct US intervention. With the toppling of the Iranian government this would solve much of our problems in Iraq. Also, there are probably groups in Syria we could support to against the Assad government. Maybe the 1968 "leftist" approach could work there to. Regime change in Iran and Syria will go along way toward solving our problems in Iraq.
Once the people rise up, the US will need to support them. Sadly the US has had a bad habit of betraying its allies. First there was the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, then Vietnam, recently forcing Israel into a ceasefire against Lebanon, not backing up the Kurds or the Shia after Desert Storm, and the list goes on.
Even if the people don't rise up, the regime in Iran MUST be stopped. If the people don't over throw them, then there will be no choice but to take military action. Iran right now is more dangerous right now than Nazi Germany or imperial Japan ever were or ever could have been. America's standing as amjor world power and probably its very survival depends on removing the Iranian regime from power or at the very least containing it. As I ahve pointed out previously, the strategy for winning the cold war including containment. Perhaps a similar strategy can work against Iran.
I've seen little evidence of parliment working hard to undermine Amadinejad. If so, that is encouraging. It means there may be someone high up in the Iranian government we can work with.
With regards to the Iranian nuke program, if the Iranians are faking it, this means they do not understand their enemy. If they abandoned the nuke program, they would get all sorts of goodies from the US and the West. This would be HUGE for their economy and the confrontational party could get all of the credit. I don't think they are faking. The leadership has stated that they desire world dominace for Islam. As such, they would want nuclear weapons.
Iran is different from Iraq. In 1981, Iraq's facilities were in one place. Iran has them all throughout the country and buried in hardened places. Elininating Iran's nuclear program will be much more difficult.
Israel's leadership is weaker than it was 25 years ago. Of that, I think there is no question and they face a much greater threat than they did 25 years ago. To say this is not a good situation, understates things dramatically. All os this means is that Israel will wait until the last possible moment to act. This is when it will be most difficult. Israel probably does not have to act now but time grows incredibly short. I hope and pray this issue can be solved before Israel has to take military action.
I'm skeptical of the claims that Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria, however, convoys of something were transferred to Syria and the Iraq Survey Group was never able to fully eliminate the possibilty. The bottom line is while, at this time, I do not think Saddam shipped his WMD stockpiles to Syria but the ISG was never able to complete the investigation into that possibility. For now, I'm assuming Iraq faked his WMD. if so, this means he did not understand his enemy. Had Iraq come clean on their WMD, Saddam would still be in power and there would be no sanctions.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 9.12.2006 @ 12:18
Nikolay
Thanks for the additional analysis. I was not yet born in 1968, however, I have seen pictures of the protests on tv. I think I now know what you mean by "leftists." Thank you for the clarification.
I agree with you that Bush is probably not going to inspire Iranians to take to the streets. Iran does have some legitimate grieveances and some imaginary ones. We also have some legitmate grieveances. If Iran had more rational leadership, it would probably be possible to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to all parties. With the Democrats coming to power the US will be using a gentler approach when dealing with middle eastern tyrants. In other words, the American side will have someone willing to reach a negotiated settlement. We just need someone on the Iranian side with real power who has the same goals of a peaceful settlement.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 9.12.2006 @ 11:26
Nikoloy
Thanks for the reply to my post. I have read about the oppostion to the Iranian gvoernment you mention. If the right assistance were to be applied to them, they could probably overthrow that government and the world would be bettr off. In any event, the only way we can confront that government right now will be through the use of proxies.
"Its 'leftist' psychology that success in Iran depends on, so if US gets a leader that Iran's dissidents can relate to, this will be good prospects for that country." This would also be good prospects for us and for the world. I'm not sure what you mean by leftist. When I think of leftist, I think of folks like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, the people who blab about national secrets to the NY Times, the reporters who gleefully report them, Seymor Hersch, the editors of counterpuch.org, adn so forth. These "leftists" would be more likely to actually help the current Iranian government and actively oppose any Iranian disidents. I'm assuming by leftists you mean a leader who takes a more diplomatic approach and a less hawkish approach. You may be on to something there.
In any event US policy will be changing dramatically in the next few months. President Bush still talks the Hawkish game but he does not have the politcal capital to actually do anything now. I actually suspect he is going to be impeached, as he should be. He's not likely to finish out his term. Even if he does somehow manage to complete his term, if he gets out of line the Democrats will simply cut funding to any miliary operations they disapprove of. In other words, the President is little more than a figure head at this point.
Part of the changes to US policy will be that US troops wil be out of Shia and Sunni areas by the end of July 2007 and, in terms of rhetoric, we will play far nicer to Iran and Syria. At least the people who will be controling the government will be taling nicer. The approach we will be using will be closer to the "leftist" approach that I think you are referring to than the one had been used by President Bush.
I had read about Iranian oppostion to the Taliban. I understand they did not really care for one another, however, from the best I can tell both the Taliban and the Iranian government like the US less than they like one another. In other words, they would gladly come together for the purpose pf opposing the US. If Itan were really doing all it could to help us take down the Taliban, they could have overthrwon that government for us and even bagged Osama for us. If Iran had made it a top priority back in say 1/01 to remove that government, they could have removed it long before the 911 attacks. Iran has one of the best intellegence agencies on earth. There human intellegence is far superior to our CIA. They would have been able to identify the Taliban's weak points, as well as identify the people within the Afghan government who would help them. As such, I think that Iranian opposition to the Taliban existed but opposing the Taliban was not a top priority to them.
For a coup to work in Iran, time grows short. The current Iranian regime will be acquiring nuclear weapons very soon. While it would be difficult for us, if handled properly we could probably manage this. Israel cannot manage this. Due to its small size and its close proximity to Iran combined with Iran's hatred of them, a nuclear armed Iran is a survival threat to Israel. They will have to act preemptively to stop this. Very soon Israel will have no choice but to take military action. God willing the situation will not reach this point. I pray we can get rid of the Iranian government or contain it before it reaches the point that Israel has no choice but to act militarily.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 8.12.2006 @ 21:50
"I wonder if any of you who supported this war have learned anything from it." That's a good question. I can't speak for everyone. I can only speak for myself. A big lesson to take from this is no matter how sound your policies might be, if they are poorly executed they will fail. One of the stated goals was to establish a functioning democracy that we could work with. This stated policy objective never got the resources allocated to it to give a reasonable chance to succeed.
All parts of the Governemnt need to be on the same page. I think we did not get the commitment we needed to give Iraqi democaracy a reasonable chance to be sucessful is becuase the Military, the White House, the State Department, the CIA, and other relevant Government agencies never really agreed on exactly what it was they wanted to accomplish.
When we invaded Iraq we did not bring enough troops and the ones we brought were not allowed to fight agressively enough. The msm generally thinks we have used to much force. This is an incorrect analysis, the problem was we did not use enough force and we still have not to this day. To summarize, politcal correctness and war fighting do not mix well. To fight a war effectively, political correctness will need to be jettisoned.
We need to get to work on energy independence, YESTERDAY!! It is criminally negligent that we are still sitting on vast untapped oil and natrual gas reserves five years after the attacks of 911.
Before you can "nation build" you must first defeat the enemy. Nation building in Germany and Japan were successful after WWII because we defeated the enemy first. We tried to engage in reconstruction before the enemy was fully defeated.
We need better human intellegence. Much of the intellegence we had about Iraq's WMD turned out to be inaccurate.
This is an overview of lessons that should have been learned. There are many more. I hope and pray that we have not become to partisan to learn from the mistakes we have made. The survival of America and Western civilization may well depend on us learning these lessons.
"The lesson from Iraq is that it's relatively easy to knock over a ME government; what comes after is the hard part." I never assumed it would be easy to remove the Iraqi Baathists. If we were to go war with say Iran or Syria, I think it would be false to assume that removing their governments would necessarily be easy. I think this over estimates American power and is quite dangerous. As I reall, the Iraqi Baathists fell much faster than was generally expected.
The war plan was drawn up to topple the regime. It was a brilliant war plan, for this purpose, and it was executed flawlessly. It seems the military wanted to get rid of Saddam's government and withdraw quickly. As stated previously, I think we never got enough troops to handle an "aftermath" is becuase policy makers were never quite sure what they wanted to accomplish.
"These people don't take to democracy, don't like us and above all don't like Israel." We will likey never know if Democracy in Iraq could have worked. We never got enough troops to provide security. The fist step to a successful democracy is to establish security and order. We should have had at least 500,000 troops and probably more on hand for the invasion. If we had enough troops, we would have had a greater ability to handle the after math of a failed democracy attempt. You are correct to point out that they don't like us or Israel. This is because they have been fed a steady diet of false propaganda about us and the Israelis. If we could successfully alter these governments, we could put a stop to the false propaganda.
If I never hear the words "regime change" again this deacle will have been worth it. It should be pointed out that while Iraq is looking rough right now, we have not failed yet. There were some very dark times during WWII and during many other wars yet we prevailed. If Iraq ends up being a "debacle" America's position as one of the world's most influential nations will be done and the very survival of the country will be in a precarious position.
With that said, the only way you are going to be hearing the words "regime change" again will be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the American homeland or American interests outside of the Middle East. If we are going to work to contain Iran or over throw its evil regime, it will be done with proxies. The only way the American military will particpate in an attack on Iran will be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the Aemrican home land or American interests outside of the Middle East.
Iran must be contained or its government overthrown. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will pose an existential threat to Israel and very soon after that it will pose an existential threat to America, as well. For better or worse, due to the American domestic politcal climate and the domestic politcal climates of our allies the only way we can confront Iran will be via proxies.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 8.12.2006 @ 20:13
ed
I did not hear the press conference. I've seen clips from it and read excerpts from it. I've also listened to some analysis on it. I agree that this pretty much seems to be the same old stuff Bush has been saying. It really does seem he and Tony Blair really do want to just "stay the course." I think there are two possibilites for this. 1.) They really think that some how the policy will work. 2.) Their speech writers really believe the stuff about Iraqi democracy and Bush and Blair are simply going through the motions. If 2 is correct, Bush picked the wrong profession. He would have been a much better actor than a President and a lousy President he has been!!
In any event, President Bush no longer has the political capital to continue what he has been doing. If he wishes to continue with the same course, the Democrats will simply cut the funding. There will be major changes in our Iraq policy. All American troops will be out of Shia and Sunni areas of Iraq by July 31, 2007. The only intervention in the Iraqi Civil war, if any, will be to prevent Al Qaeda from establihing bases and to prevent Iran from gaining complete control of the country.
I think what you suggest regarding dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions or something similar to this is ultimately what will happen. The Sunni areas have no oil. They will either need to build an economy or the US and it allies will need to subsidize them. We and our allies will probably be subsidizing them for a while. In return, they will help us to contain Iran. As they along with other Sunni states in the region have much to fear from Iran, we can probably reach a mutual accomodation with them. The Cold War was won, in part, based on containment. The GWOT can be won the same way. This can work, however, as with any policy, the implementation will be the key. Even the best policy in the world will end in failure if it is not implemented properly.
I may have gone out on a limb regarding my prediction of impeachment but I amde the prediction. I will stand by it. If I turn out to be wrong, I will come here and you can tell me how wrong I was:)
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 8.12.2006 @ 03:11
