Well, that is exactly why I put it in quotes. I don’t think much good could come of it, and I’m pretty damn sure much that is bad will.
But it won’t lead to a “Guns of August” style war. The US has, often to its great shame, bombed its share of countries in recent history, and we’ve gotten away with it every time-- no war unless we decide it will be war. Lybia, Serbia, Iraq (multiple times).
Apples to oranges…and a touch of hindsight. The Japanese may or may not have been crazy, but in purely military calculation terms they simply miscalculated our response. We hadn’t really been to war very often, our military capabilities at the time were fairly poor and the miscalculation was with our POTENTIAL and our reaction.
Also, the Japanese were a hell of a lot closer in military capability to the US at that time than…well, than anyone in the world is to us today. Let alone the Iranians. Really, there IS no question in terms of a set piece type war at this point. The US has amply displayed its capabilities in this regard…and I don’t think there is even some tribesman in Outer Mongolia who would be surprised at our reaction should Iran put an army in the field.
Well…assuming you really believe that then you should be all for the US doing whatever it takes to keep these madmen from getting a nuke, ehe? I mean…if they are stupid enough and crazy enough to try and take the US head on conventionally when our military is DESIGNED for that, how much worse will they be if they get a nuke? What will stop them from immediately launching it at Israel as soon as its in their hot little hands?
Personally I don’t believe they are so irrationally insane as all that. Putting their military in the field against the US is the same level of nuttyness as tossing a nuke at Israel.
Seriously, there is no point continuing this back and forth. If you want to bet on this (gentlemans bet for bragging rights or whatever) then lets simply do that…and wait and see. I’ll put my statement here in plain language: Iran will NOT put an army in the field against the US. The US will NOT invade Iran. There will be no general war between Iran and the US before Bush et al are getting hit in the rear by the door swinging shut.
-XT
John
Well, OK, then…are we in agreement that talk of a “surgical strike” against Iran is crazy? Are we constitutionally permitted to impeach on the basis that the President is batshit pizza? Will you sign our petition?
xt, I know how you constantly love to boast about your “Invincible Forces” but, as much as I hate to tell you (not really) what you currently have is A Broken Army.
Hell, forget Iran, The Netherlands might be too much to take on at the moment – again, short of going nuclear. And you tell me, who “wins” if you do?
No, I don’t agree that a ‘surgical strike’ against Iran is crazy. I think its inadvised at this time…but its not crazy.
And I don’t think it would be an impeachable offense if the President ordered such a strike. I didn’t think Clinton should be impeached for launching such strikes against Iraq either.
-XT
Apples to oranges comparison Red…but you know, its not really worth talking to you about this kind of stuff. Just keep telling yourself that the US military is a broken reed. I’m sure it will be a comfort to you.
-XT
Of course not. Nothing the US does would ever be – in your eyes anyway.
Rah rah! US #1!
Just as a benchmark on what can be seriously suggested: (From The Cuban Missile Crisis - Wyzant Lessons
Do you think JFK was chicken? Today, I doubt the military is pushing a strike, but do you seriously think Cheney is any more rational than LeMay 45 years ago?
Well, you’ll notice that I have explicitly stated that I don’t think it would be at all wise to bomb Iran, so it should be pretty obvious that I don’t want to find out. Whether or not we agree on what the consequences would be, it seems to me the more important matter is that we do agree on what the US should do-- ie, we should not bomb Iran.
But if there’s one way to get the entire world ready to “bomb Iran” it would be for them to sabotage the world’s oil supply. China and Russia aren’t going to sit back and see their economies go in the dumper just so they can say “I told you so” to the US. Neither will the Europeans.
elucidator: I believe I have consisted said in every thread on this subject that I do not favor air strikes, “surgical” or otherwise, against Iran. I don’t think I’d want us to do it even if the UN and the Europeans begged us to do it.
Well, as long as it prevents more senseless killing on your end, it sure does – comfort me that is.
On the impeachment thing… I’d be very surprised if Congress impeaches Bush, but if they decide to do so over the Iraq war, that’s fine with me. Since the president can be impeached for pretty much anything Congress wants to impeach him for, taking us into an unnecessary war seems like fine grounds for impeachment to me. Fine grounds for removing him from office, too (as if that will ever happen, though).
Frankly, I wish that Congress could impeach itself, too, for giving him the authority to do it. It’s his war, no doubt about that, but they put their stamp of approval on it (the ones who voted for the AUMF, that is).
As always, John, in some bizarre round about way (which, if you’ll excuse me, I blame on the round about way you express yourself) we basically agree.
As for the “whole world vs Iran” if they did what I proposed…well, not necessarily. More than a few nations (such as Russia and China) might not retaliate against them…but against those that attacked them first…and again, for no good reason. Dunno why, but it sure as heck makes sense to me.
Round about?
That’s taken from my first reply to you. I don’t see how I could have been any clearer. 
Apologies. The right spelling which obviously threw you off is roundabout
Specifically meaning: “indirect; circuitous”
adjective
Trust that clears it up for you.
Nope. I knew what you meant. So, how is this:
Roundabout?
But you know what… it really doesn’t matter. Blame it on me if you want, I don’t care. I just want other readers to be able to judge for themselves.
PS-It wasn’t from that response to me but rather from these – pardon me if I don’t link to each one. Tired. Besides they are all on this very thread and quoted verbatim:
Seeing a pattern of disdain here? Are you any closer to understanding my use of “roundabout way”?
Hope so.
PS-Yup. I also want other readers to judge for themselves.
Once more we agree. 'cept directly this time.
The blogger is not predicting military action, only an anti-Iran propaganda/marketing campaign.
They do, however, have the capability to invade Iraq and fight our troops there, and if we were to bomb their nuke plants, they would be entirely justified in doing so.
You’re being overly optimistic. Iran is in much, much better shape to fight than Iraq was in 2002. Iran also has an air force – not as good as ours, but for these purposes it doesn’t have to be. Iran has the advantage of being able to launch its planes from ground-based military airports, while we would mostly have to rely on aircraft carriers. Furthermore, in the scenario you describe it would be almost impossible for us to use our “air power” without bombing our own troops. And our troops would have a hostile Iraqi population at their backs. If they have to take on the Iranians, they will lose. (Barring the nuclear option, of course, which I hope you will agree is not even to be considered.)
Absolutely. Now. That might change.