Point of Clarification
When I say that someone needs to nuke Iran, preferably Israel, I'm not going insane over here.
I'm manifesting the common character trait of Soldiers who are aware they may find themselves in another war.
In a war, the casualties inflicted are in direct proportion to the amount of time people are shooting at each other. This is not speculation, but fact. If a war is shorter, fewer people die.
I prefer to win wars rather than lose them. History shows that it sucks rocks to lose wars. Winning isn't necessarily a walk in a park, but I think we can take as a given that it beats losing. Ask the Germans.
So from these two characteristics, we can conclude that ideally, you open a war with an incredible, overwhelming horrific demonstration of violent intent and capability that will make the enemy go, "Hot damn, let's negotiate NOW!"
For instance: If we hadn't nuked Japan, they would have had to be invaded. 1 Million US troops estimated to be killed, and the Japanese casualties would be literally incalculable, likely to the point that Japanese culture would be exterminated utterly.
In today's political climate, that's pretty much only possible by nuking the holy living hell out of someone.
Fighting the Iranians would be pretty simple. The Revolutionary Guards and Iranian Army would fall apart in 30 days or less. The Iranian Navy gets sunk in the first 24 hours, and that's only because the USN can only reload their missle launchers so fast.
Holding Iran would be a stone-cold nightmare. Imagine Iraq, times three in both population and land area. Simply impossible. The only way to have a Happy Ending would be to:
A) Nuke it into submission, so that we really no longer care what happens in the Land of Stone Age Primitives
or
B) Do an Afghanistan-style backing of a faction with significant military power and provide forward air controllers to allow them to blitzkreig to Tehran and install a new government.
Will the Real Iranian Resistance please stand up? Please stand up?
For extra points, you really need a significant part of the Iranian Army to back this faction (or at least sit out the civil war), or it will be nothing more than a protracted, messy civil war which will at least prevent the Iranian government from having the spare effort to dink with Iraq or Lebanon, but which will not look terribly good on the Evening News (this being the driving factor in American foreign policy).
I'm manifesting the common character trait of Soldiers who are aware they may find themselves in another war.
In a war, the casualties inflicted are in direct proportion to the amount of time people are shooting at each other. This is not speculation, but fact. If a war is shorter, fewer people die.
I prefer to win wars rather than lose them. History shows that it sucks rocks to lose wars. Winning isn't necessarily a walk in a park, but I think we can take as a given that it beats losing. Ask the Germans.
So from these two characteristics, we can conclude that ideally, you open a war with an incredible, overwhelming horrific demonstration of violent intent and capability that will make the enemy go, "Hot damn, let's negotiate NOW!"
For instance: If we hadn't nuked Japan, they would have had to be invaded. 1 Million US troops estimated to be killed, and the Japanese casualties would be literally incalculable, likely to the point that Japanese culture would be exterminated utterly.
In today's political climate, that's pretty much only possible by nuking the holy living hell out of someone.
Fighting the Iranians would be pretty simple. The Revolutionary Guards and Iranian Army would fall apart in 30 days or less. The Iranian Navy gets sunk in the first 24 hours, and that's only because the USN can only reload their missle launchers so fast.
Holding Iran would be a stone-cold nightmare. Imagine Iraq, times three in both population and land area. Simply impossible. The only way to have a Happy Ending would be to:
A) Nuke it into submission, so that we really no longer care what happens in the Land of Stone Age Primitives
or
B) Do an Afghanistan-style backing of a faction with significant military power and provide forward air controllers to allow them to blitzkreig to Tehran and install a new government.
Will the Real Iranian Resistance please stand up? Please stand up?
For extra points, you really need a significant part of the Iranian Army to back this faction (or at least sit out the civil war), or it will be nothing more than a protracted, messy civil war which will at least prevent the Iranian government from having the spare effort to dink with Iraq or Lebanon, but which will not look terribly good on the Evening News (this being the driving factor in American foreign policy).
posted by Just A Decurion at 9/05/2006 12:13:00 PM
5 Comments:
If there is ONE major foreign policy debacle of the GWB administration, it is AFAIC its lack of resolve in supporting Iranian elements that want regime change through revolution. This is probably because they have not been able to overcome the State Departments inertia and the usual admiration it has for despotic regimes such as Iran.
Colin Powell may have been the worst SecState since Kissinger, although there is plenty of competition for that prize. He was the least-traveled of all SecStates since WWII and the Plame/Wilson kerfuffle illustrates his utter incompetence.
He may have been a decent general in DS, but as a SecState, he considered it his primary duty oppose Administration policy. Rather than do the work of a SecState, he stayed in DC and spent his time in political infighting.
Rice is showing us what a good SecState can do. However I am disappointed in her role in the Lebanon business.
Winning isn't necessarily a walk in a park, but I think we can take as a given that it beats losing. Ask the Germans.
... who might point you here.
For instance: If we hadn't nuked Japan, they would have had to be invaded.
... to enforce an unconditional surrender. There were alternatives, if this information is correct.
The Japanese used to be almost as driven by honor as the Arabs, it seems.
Unconditional surrender was a given by 1944, never mind 1945. You start the war, you don't get to set the conditions under which we quit killing your people.
Unconditional surrender was a given choice. There were other choices.
Your choices how to have a Happy Ending aren't exhaustive, either, unless you have a very restrictive view of a Happy Ending.
What assumption makes you restrict your choices to only two? This assumption is not implicitly obvious, so it helps if you state it explicitly.
Anyway, let's hope that the Iraqis (and assorted sympathizers, Muslim and others) don't heed: "You start the war, you don't get to set the conditions under which we quit killing your people."
Post a Comment
<< Home