The blogger is talking about war, so if by “this horror” you mean actual war with Iran, you might want to reconsider that wager.
If Bush wants to drop a few bombs on Iran, he doesn’t need to whip up any support for that. He’ll just do it. But war… No, that’s just not even possible with how we’re bogged down in Iraq. In fact, it’s hard to imagine how we’re going to sustain Bush’s adventure in Iraq past next year.
That might well be all he actually intends, and all this purported propaganda-campaing plan would be meant to facilitate (see post #14).
But if he actually does it, it won’t end happily for the U.S. or for anybody else.
So, basically your thesis is that whatever happens, this blogger will have predicted it.
If there is no military action, then you can just claim that the test marketing didn’t work, and they decided not to roll out the product afterall. Like I said-- a self-fulfiling prophecy.
And if the Iranians insanely overreact? Aren’t you depending on rational behavior on their part, as well as our own?
I’m assuming you’ve read The Guns of August, by Barbara Tuchman, who may be the smartest person I’ve ever read. Remember how the giant gears of war can start turning over the most trivial miscalculation, and how it once starts to roll, no one knows how to stop it?
And how does our President go about reassuring them? By accusing them of direct complicity in the deaths of Our Heroes (also known as “waving the bloody shirt”…) By asserting on the basis of his telepathy that they mean to acquire a nuclear weapon with the intention of using it. That’s some kinda goddam diplomacy! Did he attend the John Bolton School of International Relations?
Did you make note of that speech The Leader just gave? Does that sound to you like a man committed to peaceful accomodation and compromise?
No, I’m depending on the fact that they don’t have the capability of attacking us and that we don’t have any more troops to call on to invade Iran. We had something like 300k troops going into Iraq, and Iran is much bigger, with more military capability than Iraq had. Bush is struggling to keep the 30k troops for “the surge” in Iraq in place.
The most they could realistically do is to up the ante in how they’re meddling in Iraq. Even if they tried to use conventional forces to attack our guys there, it would be a suicide mission for them. Our air power would just blow them to pieces as they tried to cross the border. Then what?
I had forgotten that, you are quite correct. The Islamic fanatics utterly disdain suicidal efforts, having no concept of “martyrdom”. Forget I ever suggested anything so foolish.
But that’s not what you suggested. You suggested war. That isn’t war.
Help us out, here, John, we lack your semantic precision. What would it be, then, since it so clearly isn’t “war”?
I can’t help you out there. It’s your scenario, you give it a name. All I know is it isn’t war-- especially as defined by the OP and your previous posts. You guys are talking about an American led invasion of Iran. Not gonna happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.
Look, if you want to argue that bad things will come from a “surgical strike” on Iran, I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree with you. I certainly am not.
I’ve gotta say, if we do bomb Iran, it will mean war. But the Iranians aren’t going to line up tanks on the border for us to bomb, they’ve already got a model for how to operate: Iraq. The only difference is that the Iranians aren’t going to bother denying that they’re supporting the militias.
We know we’re not going to invade Iran with a column of tanks. They know we’re not going to invade Iran with a column of tanks. We know Iran isn’t going to invade Iraq with a column of tanks. They know they’re not going to invade Iraq with a column of tanks.
The Iranians will respond “assymetrically” as the buzzword goes. So how do we stop those assymetric attacks? We aren’t going to send ground troops except special forces raids. So…bomb them? What do we bomb? Shut down Iran’s oil production? Great plan.
We’re not going to be able to drop bombs on Iran and expect them to shrug it off. That’s not going to happen, their internal politics won’t allow it.
If all else fails, redefine the terms. Your gift for improvisation is an inspiration to us all.
Huh? Wha? Cite?
Nobody’s internal politics would allow that! Sweden would go to war if bombed!
When Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days towards the end of his term, were we at war with them? Were they at war with us? No. Same thing here.
So, you’re saying that we are not going to invade Iran and you disagree with the OP and the blogger?
Well, we’ve bombed a few countries in the past and not much happened. Remember when Reagan bombed Libya? So there’s a past experience where we were able to drop some bombs on other countries not not expect much in the way of retaliation. I mean, there’s the Lockerbie bombing, but that’s not exactly a tit-for-tat retaliation, they aren’t exactly tightly coupled, and besides, it didn’t happen in America, did it?
I don’t think we’d see a repeat in Iran.
Of course, that may not be actual “war”, we haven’t got a ruling on that. John?
So, you’re making an analogy to two occasions that led to an actual wars-- with invasions, land forces, the whole shebang-- but you’re saying they are not indications of what will happen this time. So, what was the analogy for…?
The level of propaganda in eveidence in 2002 related to a war with Iraq was vastly greater, and more openly aggressive, than is the case with Iran.
The Bush administration had reasons to invade Iraq - not necessarily the ones they gave the public, but reasons all the same. There’s no advantage to them in invading Iran, and the risks are in fact much higher.
The United States is simply not capable, with the assets it has at hand, of invading Iran, and a limited attack would provoke a full scale war anyway.
I would assume you are referring to Operation Desert Fox, which was not “near the end of his term,” it was just before the halfway point of his second term.
Yes. You’re right, Dec 1998. My bad.
I think I’m on pretty safe ground if we are talking about an all out war with Iran. Tonkin Bay? Remember the Maine? Sure…but the US wasn’t over committed in 2 other countries when either of those happened, our military ALREADY stretched to the breaking point.
I’m as sure as gravity that we won’t be invading Iran…and that this loopy plan to some how get support is the fever dream of some loony lefty that needs to up the voltage a bit (I’m talking about the blogger, not BG).
Well, I won’t torture you in the Pit over this, but sure, I’ll bet you for bragging rights on this. Lets define ‘this horror’ however. Are we talking about dropping a few bombs or tossing a few tomahawks a la Clinton…or a full scale conflict? If the former then no bet…I rate the chance of us dropping some ordinance on Iraq as low, but not extremely so. If we are talking about a full out conflict, invasion, etc…then you have a bet.
And you CAN feel free to torture me about it all you like in the Pit…and I’ll show up and eat all the crow you could desire.
Well, thats certainly a difference between us 'luci. I AM wrong, quite often…and I make no bones about that. My positions have altered quite radically in the last few years, and positions I once believed in I now reject.
That said…I’m not wrong about this. The US will not invade Iran…the US CAN NOT invade Iran. We simply do not have either the combat strength OR the political will for any such venture. The fevered dreams of unsable blogger types not withstanding…
-XT
Not even close. Saddam was sane. Saddam didn’t want a war with the US, Saddam did not expect that Allah would save his bacon (so to speak…)
Didn’t ask you to rephrase me to your convenience. Asked you to show where I said what you said I said. Which you can’t, hence this dodge.