Software·43,881 discussions

More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

Locked

We are approqaching the fourth anniversary of this military bungle. Does Bush REALLY think 20,000 more troops will solve the problem?

On the day Hussein was hanged, the 3,000th American soldier died in Iraq. There are going to be a lot of unhappy widows and girlfriends when they realize their loved ones died in vain, just because Bush could not admit he was wrong.

And additionally he has never yet admitted that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil.

[b]The Australian, AFP and Reuters, January 11, 2007[/b]

George W. Bush has taken responsibility for the US military’s mistakes in Iraq and warned its leaders they must do more to stamp out violence, as he announced that more than 20,000 extra troops will be sent to secure the country.

The increase, which will bring the total US deployment in the country to 150,000, is seen as the last roll of the dice for the President’s policy in prosecuting the war, amid a mounting US and civilian death toll and waning support among Americans. In a sombre televised address, Mr Bush has admitted there were not enough troops sent to Iraq to secure the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime and that those who were there were too restricted to do their jobs properly.

“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me,” Mr Bush has said. He has also told Iraq’s leaders that more must be done to quell the sectarian violence between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias that has plunged the country into what some already say is civil war.

But he also warned of the grim consequences of abandoning the country. “To step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.”

Prime Minister John Howard has backed the new strategy as “sensible and realistic”, saying the only alternative was admitting the West could not win in Iraq. But Labor has said it could place Australian troops deployed there in greater danger. Despite the planned boost, Mr Bush did not ask Mr Howard to commit more Australian personnel.

In his address, Mr Bush has said “there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighbourhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents.

“If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home,” he said, seeking to head off criticism of the deployment amid opinion polls showing most Americans oppose sending more troops.

He has said US personnel will be embedded with expanded Iraqi patrols of Baghdad, adding that they have been given the “green light” to enter sectarian stronghold neighbourhoods to deal with threats.

He has said commanders will now have the force levels needed to hold areas once they are cleared of insurgents. Previously, he has said, insurgents would move back into an area once over-stretched US forces moved out.

The new strategy “will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror”, he has said.

But he went on to say: “Deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American sacrifices and casualties.”

Mr Bush has said he made it clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that his Government must act soon, saying that “America’s commitment is not open-ended”.

“If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act,” Mr Bush has said.

He has also vowed to block support flowing to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq from Syria and Iran.

Mr Bush, whose new plan calls for $US5.6 billion ($7.2bn) for the extra troops and about another $US1.2bn in assistance, has stressed that social improvements must accompany bolstered military strength if Iraqis are to get behind their administration.

The President set a November target for Iraq to resume control of its own security ? a crucial step towards eventual troop withdrawal.

Leaders of the Democratic Party, who swept to control of Congress in mid-term elections last November in part due to voter dissatisfaction with Mr Bush’s Iraq policy, have said the plan “endangers our national security by placing additional burdens on our already over-extended military”.

They called on Mr Bush to start the phased withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within six months, adding that the Iraqi Government would not act to assume responsibility for security until it saw America was serious about leaving the country.

“Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it.”

‘Sensible’

But the plan has received warm support from Mr Bush’s ally, Mr Howard.

“It was a very clear, calm and, above all, a realistic speech, but he didn’t underestimate the challenge, he admitted some mistakes have been made and made it very clear what is at stake,” Mr Howard, who Mr Bush briefed on the strategy in a phone call yesterday, has said.

“The alternatives for the President were to announce what he has announced or admit the West could not win in Iraq. An American or Western defeat in Iraq would give an unbelievable boost to terrorism,” he has said.

He has said there is “no direct implication” for Australian forces in Iraq, but Labor’s spokesman Robert McClelland has said it could put Diggers directly in harm’s way.

“There is no strategy for dealing with an escalation in violence if it balloons out into other areas including where Australians are.”

Mr Howard has refused to speculate on a timeline for withdrawing Australian troops, but he has admitted it is “some time away”.

Australia has 1400 military personnel deployed in the Middle East, including 800 soldiers based in Iraq, most involved in training Iraqi security forces.

A security detachment of 110 troops is based in Baghdad to provide protection and escort for Australian government officials working in the embassy.

Meanwhile in a report published London’s Daily Telegraph, it is claimed that Britain is preparing to withdraw 2700 of its troops from southern Iraq by May, taking the overall number in the country to 7200.

Topic

Iraq war

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

“Does Bush REALLY think 20,000 more troops will solve the problem?”
No, he doesn’t think that at all.

“…loved ones died in vain”
Hardly.

IMHO
Contrary to poular opinion, the war in Iraq is over. It was over as soon as Sadam was captured. The continuing military action in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. This is the same war that is being fought in Afganistan and Somalia.

Bush knows that another 20,000 troops will not win the war on terrorism. He knows that it will take international cooperation. But so far the UK is the only other nation to step up to the task.

If the rest of the world would act against terrorism, instead of profiting from it, then the war on terror can be won, and our soldiers will not have died in vain.

Well said

In reply to Iraq war

Good post.

war on terrorism

In reply to Iraq war

There was no terrorism in Iraq except Saddam’s before the invasion. Now there is sectarian fighting and Al Qa’ida. The US forces are fighting against both. If the US were not involved, Al Qa’ida would probably not be interested in Iraq. The sectarian fighting is not caused by the US presence.

The war has largely taken the demonstrating classes’ attention away from the Palestine Question issue, hasn’t it? That was presumably why the Israelis wanted the war, and I suppose they calculate that the Palestine Question would resurge promptly if the US were to withdraw in 2007.

But, iraq gives us troops right in the middle of where the terrorist are

In reply to war on terrorism

And you can not dispute that Iran and Syria do support terrorists.

Or would you have us beg to perform fly over’s of countries?

Dan

troops to fall

In reply to But, iraq gives us troops right in the middle of where the terrorist are

Al Qa’ida was not in Iraq before the Bush conquest, and most of the killing in Iraq now is sectarian. The reference to Syria and Iran is a red herring as the US is not fighting either of these, or their proxies. The troops in Iraq could do much more good in Afghanistan. This is not to say that Dubya should withdraw them in the present situation – on that I give no opinion – merely that the US has no great interest in this war.

So you offer no alternatives to any of it, you just complain?

In reply to troops to fall

[i]This is not to say that Dubya should withdraw them in the present situation – on that I give no opinion – merely that the US has no great interest in this war.[/i]

Basicatly proves the point that no other solutions are offered, just critisim. Same as it has always been.

Dan

You bet we complain

In reply to So you offer no alternatives to any of it, you just complain?

All those of us who said [b]before[/b] the invasion, “Don’t go in, it’ll serve no purpose” and “You’ll just make things worse” and “Thousands will die for no reason whatsoever other than to give Bush a scapegoat” and “Remember Vietnam” and – above all – “You have no right to do this thing” are not going to take crap from the likes of you because WE don’t know how to fix the unholy mess that YOU caused by YOUR STUPIDITY.

Strangely, though, I do have a solution.

Get out now.

APOLOGISE. APOLOGISE. APOLOGISE.

Pay them lots of money and don’t attempt to tell them how to spend it and how to run their lives.

Fat chance, though, eh?

Criticism? You f*cking bet I’m criticising! And you know what? I’m allowed to.

Neil, my complaint is no alternatives are offered.

In reply to You bet we complain

And yes, I do know that you have put forward what you feel should have been done instead. Which I totally respect.

This argument goes directly at the ones that will offer nothing. Or, will agree about a policy when it is put forward by their party or a bipartisan fact finding, but will not support it once it is put into action because it is being done by this President.

If this president had wanted to pull troops out, it wouldn’t have been fast enough.

If this president wanted to surge not troops, but support personnel to help in the rebuilding of the country. Complaints would have been raised with that.

If this president wanted to pull troops back to the borders, and only go into train mode. Complaints would be raised that we are letting the ethnic violence continue.

There is nothing that this president could have done to quell this bs. So, he did what he felt was right. Which was a compromise between the commission opinion and McCain’s. Hell, this president is criticized because he does not compromise. When he does, the political opposition still isn’t happy.

Again, in my eyes you have every right to raise your opinion. Why, because you are willing to offer an alternative. You have from the beginning, you offered alternatives all throughout this engagement. And your alternatives are not to roll over and kiss the a$$’s of those that attack us, which is what a lot of people want to do by their not offering anything else.

Dan

Dan, I know where you’re at but my point is simple

In reply to You bet we complain

It’s just that whenever I get into any debate on Iraq whether on this board or in the pub, I get annoyed with those who criticise we who opposed the invasion in the first place for not having the answer now. Even if I had no suggestion whatsoever to offer, it’s not right that we get criticism for having no answer when one of the main reasons that we had for opposition to the war was that it would “destabilise the region and cause chaos”. Well, it HAS and we have no more idea what to do than Bush.

So, you see, I was just sticking up for John.Wills as I’ve been in exactly the same position when arguing this over a couple of beers. Often.

The real problem for some of us Brits, however, is that we reckon that without the shambles of Iraq, it’s just possible that the UK-born Muslims who bombed London might just have stuck to their day-jobs and not become suicide bombers. The worry is that as long as Iraq continues to go the way it is and as long as Israel is not in the slightest checked back, the likelihood of similar misguided idiots turning into more suicide bombers is all the greater.

Whilst I accept that one doesn’t give in to terrorism, I do really, really believe that one doesn’t have to out of ones way to make it so much worse.

Thank you Neil

In reply to You bet we complain

for saving me the trouble of typing that.

This is also the view of most Australians.

You had your London bombing. In Australia two major terrorist attempts were thwarted by, well, luck I guess, although there was some intelligence (as in finding information) which helped nip the plans in the bud.

As impracticable as it is, I would like to see ALL foreigners pack up their bags and get the hell out of Iraq. This would not reduce the number of Iraqi deaths, but it would prevent any further deaths of foreigners.

The longer this debacle drags on, the more proof it gives that the war on terror cannot be won with standard military tactics.

Here is a rather pertinent observation that was posted here by Colin some time ago.

[b]TERRORISM AND IRAQ

By COLIN LUCK[/b]

The terrorists are only in Iraq after the invasion and the removal of a lawfully elected Government, no matter how distasteful we may have found it. Sure there were some remains of the army who where prepared to fight a guerrilla war after the overthrow of the Iraq Government, but now there is an organized resistance from outside Iraq doing most of the damage. I’m betting that within 10 years of all of us withdrawing from Iraq that it will be back in exactly the same position that they where before the invasion: – a dictator running the place as he/she fit.

The current problems in the Middle East can be traced directly back to an Englishman commonly known as Lawrence of Arabia, who is considered as being responsible for the layout of the Middle East as it exists today. He was also responsible for the current political system which is mostly monarchical in type.

The real problem with terrorists is that they have no borders to defend, so they can just move around as they need to and leave the country that they where staying in previously in tatters as they get attacked and defeated. It is the terrorists who know when to run away and hide, not the individual countries who have a lot to lose and sometimes a lot to gain as in Afghanistan prior to 9/11where the Taliban was supported financially by Al Queda.

Now it is widely considered by many that some of the remnant’s of this group escaped into Pakistan, which is an ally and who is incapable of even venturing into the area where they were thought to be, as it is such a lawless place that no Government official is safe no matter if they be a member of the Government or a group of well armed and supported soldiers. While this particular area is in Pakistan, it is effectively a different country as they only pay lip service to what the Pakistan Government wants to happen.

You also have the problem that, even if you manage to wipe out the heads of these organisations the survivors will only go elsewhere and start new groups, so that instead of only having one problem you end up with many from different sources. The only way to prevent this is to stop the reasons why people are drawn to these groups, and it is not “Religious Zeal” but poverty, as they see their actions as the only way out of the present situation.

In all of the oil rich Middle East countries it is a fact that while there is an enormous revenue from the oil, the general population see no results from this and are now in a worse position than they where 30 years ago. They now have a far larger population to support (something like a 4,000% increase in that time) and a far lower standard of living. If it were possible to break the hopelessness of these people, there just would not be the people willing to join these fanatical groups in the numbers that they currently are. The family of a suicide bomber in Palestine receives $10,000.00 US when the person blows him/her self up and takes a few Jews with them. Now they are not doing this for the “Idea” or even in the hope that they will be blessed with the 40 virgins at the gates of Heaven but for the money to support the family.

If it was possible to break the cycle of poverty in these countries this problem simply would not exist to the extent that it does today if at all, as the people who are only too willing to send others to their deaths seem somewhat reticent to do the same thing when they have the chance. These leaders are effectively no different to our politicians who do exactly the same thing.

Now I’m not advocating this for a single minute, but just how far do you think the US President would get if the Military refused to follow his orders? About as far as Ben Laden would and that isn’t very far at all. The current idea of chopping off the head to see the rest of the beast wither away just isn’t going to work. What needs to happen is to cut their legs out from underneath them so they do not have the cannon fodder to throw away at will like they are presently doing. America currently has a position where Iraq was invaded to teach North Korea a lesson. Of course North Korea was not attacked as they are capable of standing up for themselves unlike Iraq.

We now have outside people pouring into Iraq to kill the “American Infidel,” so what was nothing more than a side issue in “The War on Terror” has turned into a far bigger mess than it was originally intended to. This is something that always happens when you deploy the military with no clear defined purpose. When this whole mess started the original objective was to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well guess what: they don’t exist and in all likelihood never, did but with some careful “Social Engineering” people can be taught to believe almost anything. Iraq is a perfect example of this. Iraq never had any direct connections with Al Quadia other than maybe some of its members passed through Iraq.Well if that is a reason to invade a country why was Pakistan left alone? After all they had to traverse Pakistan when they where running away from Afghanistan so by the same logic or lack thereof, Pakistan should have been the second country invaded and the repressive regime overthrown.

The one really big problem with organisations like Al Quadia is that they have no borders to protect and they can just melt into the background as required. So with no specific target GWB chose Iraq — probably because of the person running the place and the way he was perceived (quite rightly) by the rest of the world. You can have the biggest army and best weapons in the world but these are useless if you have no target to use them on.

For what reason are US and allied soldiers still being sent to Iraq? To help democratic elections to be held? Sorry but no it is nothing more than a face saving exercise now, as the situation has been reached where the COW is unable to lose this battle so they must stay until the bitter end. You had better believe that for every person sent by the COW there are ten going there voluntarily to throw us out.

While America is a very big country they can not hope to prevail in a situation like this as they simply lack the manpower, and unless you want to resort to actions like Saddam Hussein we are bound to lose in the end as we simply do not have the manpower or equipment to withstand an assault like what is coming if something doesn’t happen rapidly that brings peace to that area. The current actions of the COW have not soothed the Iraq population but only inflamed them. The very same people who saw us as a liberating force now see us as the enemy who must be thrown out at all costs. Sure the US has the ability to turn Iraq into a sea of molten glass in the desert, but it is incapable of doing this because if they do they are showing themselves to be far worse than Saddam ever was, and unfortunately that is the only way that we have a single chance to win this whole mess that was started by an act of stupidity.

Currently we have a tin-pot fool being given far more recongnition than he could ever have hoped for, and getting world wide exposure. If he had been left alone running that stupid little newspaper, a few thousand people would have heard of him and as they already knew him or of him. They don’t count now almost everyone in the world has heard of him and the fanatic fools are rushing to defend a bigger fool from the stupid actions that have started this whole mess snowballing out of control.

The simple fact is that you can not deploy any military force without clear and concise directives and plans. We all went in to remove Saddam Hussein but there was no plan of what to do after the fact, and it is this poor planing that we are paying the price for now. Many Americans say they distrust the UN but what will happen if it is the US who turns out to be the “War Criminals” in this case? These people (Iraqis) do not know any better as all of their lives they have lived this way, so you cannot honestly expect them to change overnight a way of life that has kept them alive up till now. Any change that might be seen will be in 3 – 4 generations time — nothing sooner.

After all there is no clear enemy so that, short of genocide, you can never be sure that you have rid that country of the people whom George Bush originally claimed to be attempting to free from oppression. I honestly think you would stand a better chance of digging the biggest hole possible with a D10 Cat and attempting to fill it with $1,000.00 notes one at a time in the middle of a hurricane than winning a clean victory in Iraq. Right this minute there are people over there who were previously separated by hatred, but who are now uniting to rid themselves of the occupying force, which they see as far worse than what they had previously.

That’s the very definition of terrorism.

In reply to You bet we complain

[i]it’s just possible that the UK-born Muslims who bombed London might just have stuck to their day-jobs and not become suicide bombers.[/i]

It’s like me saying “If you don’t do what I want you to do, I’m gonng to slap your sister.”

No way are you getting away with THAT one, Tony

In reply to You bet we complain

Terrorists always have a purpose, however alien the philosophy of targeting innocents might usually seem to our Western sensibilities. We suffered the IRA for a number of years and I feel free to say the “assistance” from the US to our efforts to combat their activities was pretty damn absent – quite the reverse. At the current time, the IRA have stopped bombing and the way that was achieved was by a combination of good intelligence and, in the end, involving them in the politics of the issue for which they were fighting. According to the US model of fighting terrorism, we would have been perfectly justified in roaring into the Irish Republic at will and toasting half of Belfast. Yeah. That would have worked, wouldn’t it?

At present, the United States and its stooge, the UK, is currently engaged in a rather stupid war in Iraq. Given that to any impartial observer there was absolutely no legal or moral justification for the UK’s involvement, we have thus alienated a very large number of people that we didn’t really need both at the international level and at the personal level.

It is my honest belief that we are WRONG so, given that there must be a very large number of Muslims who feel even more strongly, it’s not completely unsurprising that a very few of them can be tipped over the edge to become suicide bombers. If I can see this obvious connection, then so can my government. As long as we continue the illegal (for us) and immoral (for both of us) occupation of Iraq, it will get worse both there and, I fear, at home.

It is my personal belief that, had we not supported you in Iraq, the London bombings would not have happened. You might say that this is terrroism – do what we want or we’ll bomb you – but we were never threatened. Our actions in Islamic countries was just enough for somebody, somewhere to just manage to talk a handful of extremely disaffected young men into doing something terminally stupid. I might also say that “do what we want or we’ll bomb you” pretty much seeems to fit the current forign policy of the US. It’s unlikely that more bombings will have any more effect as we, at least, have been here before (thank you, NORAID).

Cart before the horse.

In reply to But, iraq gives us troops right in the middle of where the terrorist are

The “terrorists” were [i]not[/i] there before we went there.

Some are there now because we went there; [b]most are not.[/b]

And now, the game is Iran’s to win or lose.

In reply to Cart before the horse.

Strategic Forecasting

GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
01.16.2007

Rhetoric and Reality: The View from Iran
By George Friedman

The Iraq war has turned into a duel between the United States and Iran. For the United States, the goal has been the creation of a generally pro-American coalition government in Baghdad — representing Iraq’s three major ethnic communities. For Iran, the goal has been the creation of either a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad or, alternatively, the division of Iraq into three regions, with Iran dominating the Shiite south.

The United States has encountered serious problems in creating the coalition government. The Iranians have been primarily responsible for that. With the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June, when it appeared that the Sunnis would enter the political process fully, the Iranians used their influence with various Iraqi Shiite factions to disrupt that process by launching attacks on Sunnis and generally destabilizing the situation. Certainly, Sunnis contributed to this, but for much of the past year, it has been the Shia, supported by Iran, that have been the primary destabilizing force.

So long as the Iranians continue to follow this policy, the U.S. strategy cannot succeed. The difficulty of the American plan is that it requires the political participation of three main ethnic groups that are themselves politically fragmented. Virtually any substantial group can block the success of the strategy by undermining the political process. The Iranians, however, appear to be in a more powerful position than the Americans. So long as they continue to support Shiite groups within Iraq, they will be able to block the U.S. plan. Over time, the theory goes, the Americans will recognize the hopelessness of the undertaking and withdraw, leaving Iran to pick up the pieces. In the meantime, the Iranians will increasingly be able to dominate the Shiite community and consolidate their hold over southern Iraq. The game appears to go to Iran.

Americans are extremely sensitive to the difficulties the United States faces in Iraq. Every nation-state has a defining characteristic, and that of the United States is manic-depression, cycling between insanely optimistic plans and total despair. This national characteristic tends to blind Americans to the situation on the other side of the hill. Certainly, the Bush administration vastly underestimated the difficulties of occupying Iraq — that was the manic phase. But at this point, it could be argued that the administration again is not looking over the other side of the hill at the difficulties the Iranians might be having. And it is useful to consider the world from the Iranian point of view.

The Foundation of Foreign Policy

It is important to distinguish between the rhetoric and the reality of Iranian foreign policy. As a general principle, this should be done with all countries. As in business, rhetoric is used to shape perceptions and attempt to control the behavior of others. It does not necessarily reveal one’s true intentions or, more important, one’s capabilities. In the classic case of U.S. foreign policy, Franklin Roosevelt publicly insisted that the United States did not intend to get into World War II while U.S. and British officials were planning to do just that. On the other side of the equation, the United States, during the 1950s, kept asserting that its goal was to liberate Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union, when in fact it had no plans, capabilities or expectations of doing so. This does not mean the claims were made frivolously — both Roosevelt and John Foster Dulles had good reasons for posturing as they did — but it does mean that rhetoric is not a reliable indicator of actions. Thus, the purple prose of the Iranian leadership cannot be taken at face value.

To get past the rhetoric, let’s begin by considering Iran’s objective geopolitical position.

Historically, Iran has faced three enemies. Its oldest enemy was to the west: the Arab/Sunni threat, against which it has struggled for millennia. Russia, to the north, emerged as a threat in the late 19th century, occupying northern Iran during and after World War II. The third enemy has worn different faces but has been a recurring threat since the time of Alexander the Great: a distant power that has intruded into Persian affairs. This distant foreign power — which has at times been embodied by both the British and the Americans — has posed the greatest threat to Iran. And when the element of a distant power is combined with one of the other two traditional enemies, the result is a great global or regional power whose orbit or influence Iran cannot escape. To put that into real terms, Iran can manage, for example, the chaos called Afghanistan, but it cannot manage a global power that is active in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously.

For the moment, Russia is contained. There is a buffer zone of states between Iran and Russia that, at present, prevents Russian probes. But what Iran fears is a united Iraq under the influence or control of a global power like the United States. In 1980, the long western border of Iran was attacked by Iraq, with only marginal support from other states, and the effect on Iran was devastating. Iran harbors a rational fear of attack from that direction, which — if coupled with American power — could threaten Iranian survival.

Therefore, Iran sees the American plan to create a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad as a direct threat to its national interests. Now, the Iranians supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; they wanted to see their archenemy, former President Saddam Hussein, deposed. But they did not want to see him replaced by a pro-American regime. Rather, the Iranians wanted one of two outcomes: the creation of a pro-Iranian government dominated by Iraqi Shia (under Iran’s control), or the fragmentation of Iraq. A fragmented Iraq would have two virtues. It would prove no danger to Iran, and Iran likely would control or heavily influence southern Iraq, thus projecting its power from there throughout the Persian Gulf.

Viewed this way, Iran’s behavior in Iraq is understandable. A stable Iraq under U.S. influence represents a direct threat to Iran, while a fragmented or pro-Iranian Iraq does not. Therefore, the Iranians will do whatever they can to undermine U.S. attempts to create a government in Baghdad. Tehran can use its influence to block a government, but it cannot — on its own — create a pro-Iranian one. Therefore, Iran’s strategy is to play spoiler and wait for the United States to tire of the unending conflict. Once the Americans leave, the Iranians can pick up the chips on the table. Whether it takes 10 years or 30, the Iranians assume that, in the end, they will win. None of the Arab countries in the region has the power to withstand Iran, and the Turks are unlikely to get into the game.

The Unknown Variables

Logic would seem to favor the Iranians. But in the past, the Iranians have tried to be clever with great powers and, rather than trapping them, have wound up being trapped themselves. Sometimes they have simply missed other dimensions of the situation. For example, when the revolutionaries overthrew the Shah and created the Islamic Republic, the Iranians focused on the threat from the Americans, and another threat from the Soviets and their covert allies in Iran. But they took their eyes off Iraq — and that miscalculation not only cost them huge casualties and a decade of economic decay, but broke the self-confidence of the Iranian regime.

The Iranians also have miscalculated on the United States. When the Islamic Revolution occurred, the governing assumption — not only in Iran but also in many parts of the world, including the United States — was that the United States was a declining power. It had, after all, been defeated in Vietnam and was experiencing declining U.S. military power and severe economic problems. But the Iranians massively miscalculated with regard to the U.S. position: In the end, the United States surged and it was the Soviets who collapsed.

The Iranians do not have a sterling record in managing great powers, and especially in predicting the behavior of the United States. In large and small ways, they have miscalculated on what the United States would do and how it would do it. Therefore, like the Americans, the Iranians are deeply divided. There are those who regard the United States as a bumbling fool, all set to fail in Iraq. There are others who remember equally confident forecasts about other American disasters, and who see the United States as ruthless, cunning and utterly dangerous.

These sentiments, then, divide into two policy factions. On the one side, there are those who see Bush’s surge strategy as an empty bluff. They point out that there is no surge, only a gradual buildup of troops, and that the number of troops being added is insignificant. They point to political divisions in Washington and argue that the time is ripe for Iran to go for it all. They want to force a civil war in Iraq, to at least dominate the southern region and take advantage of American weakness to project power in the Persian Gulf.

The other side wonders whether the Americans are as weak as they appear, and also argues that exploiting a success in Iraq would be more dangerous and difficult than it appears. The United States has substantial forces in Iraq, and the response to Shiite uprisings along the western shore of the Persian Gulf would be difficult to predict. The response to any probe into Saudi Arabia certainly would be violent.

We are not referring here to ideological factions, nor to radicals and moderates. Rather, these are two competing visions of the United States. One side wants to exploit American weakness; the other side argues that experience shows that American weakness can reverse itself unexpectedly and trap Iran in a difficult and painful position. It is not a debate about ends or internal dissatisfaction with the regime. Rather, it is a contest between audacity and caution.

The Historical View

Over time — and this is not apparent from Iranian rhetoric — caution has tended to prevail. Except during the 1980s, when they supported an aggressive Hezbollah, the Iranians have been quite measured in their international actions. Following the war with Iraq, they avoided overt moves — and they even were circumspect after the fall of the Soviet Union, when opportunities presented themselves to Iran’s north. After 9/11, the Iranians were careful not to provoke the United States: They offered landing rights for damaged U.S. aircraft and helped recruit Shiite tribes for the American effort against the Taliban. The rhetoric alternated between intense and vitriolic; the actions were more cautious. Even with the Iranian nuclear project, the rhetoric has been far more intense than the level of development seems to warrant.

Rhetoric influences perceptions, and perceptions can drive responses. Therefore, the rhetoric should not be discounted as a driving factor in the geopolitical system. But the real debate in Iran is over what to do about Iraq. No one in Iran wants a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, and blocking the emergence of such a government has a general consensus. But how far to go in trying to divide Iraq, creating a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and projecting power in the region is a matter of intense debate. In fact, cautious behavior combined with extreme rhetoric still appears to be the default position in Tehran, with more adventurous arguments struggling to gain acceptance.

The United States, for its part, is divided between the desire to try one more turn at the table to win it all and the fear that it is becoming hopelessly trapped. Iran is divided between a belief that the time to strike is now and a fear that counting the United States out is always premature. This is an engine that can, in due course, drive negotiations. Iran might be “evil” and the United States might be “Satan,” but at the end of the day, international affairs involving major powers are governed not by rhetoric but by national interest. The common ground between the United States and Iran is that neither is certain it can achieve its real strategic interests. The Americans doubt they can create a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, and Iran is not certain the United States is as weak as it appears to be.

Fear and uncertainty are the foundations of international agreement, while hope and confidence fuel war. In the end, a fractured Iraq — an entity incapable of harming Iran, but still providing an effective buffer between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula — is emerging as the most viable available option.

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com .

? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

To wrongs don’t make a right

In reply to Iraq war

First off let me say I think it was wrong to go into Iraq. But on the other hand we elected George Bush to do a job. That job requires tough decisions. I assume that he is privilaged to information that I don’t have. And he based the decision to invade Iraq on that information. Based on that I support the war.

The other issue that anti-war activists point out was that now WMD’s werer found. But what most fail to understand was that WND’ s was not the justification for going into Iraq.

At the momnent I forget the exact issue, but the US went into Iraq becasue Sadam refused to abide by several UN resolutions. The last of witch included military consequences.

So the first wrong was to go in their in the first place. The second wrong would be to get out before Iraq has been stablized.

Ooooops! Not quite right…

In reply to To wrongs don’t make a right

Given that “the US went into Iraq becasue Sadam refused to abide by several UN resolutions”, why did the US (and your stupid stooge, the UK) go in against the wishes of the majority of both the Security Council and the wider UN?

Yes, the first wrong was to go in there in the first place. The second wrong is to stay there and just keep making things worse both for Iraqis and the world in general.

Please, please learn the lesson of Vietnam.

The lesson of Vietnam

In reply to Ooooops! Not quite right…

was not to let politicians run the war from overseas.

The lesson of Vietnam was to never fight a “limited war”.

You make a plan, give the Generals their orders and hit your enemy with everything you have, and then wait for your Generals to report back to you when the job is done.

THAT is the lesson, and because of limiting rules of engagement, it is clear we have not learned that.

Have the Iraqis go in to the hotbeds, and then give them all the support the coalition forces have.

You do not “win” a conflict by trying to hold a position, and we have not been fighting to win.

Not sure, but did you see the link I posted to Jessie about the Iranian soldiers attacking coalition forces? A clear act of war by Iran. Not a wonder it is being downplayed in the media big time.

You haven’t learned the lesson of Viet Nam

In reply to The lesson of Vietnam

The lesson of Viet Nam was that you can’t go win by fighting the war you’re good at, if that is not the war that confronts you.

Like Viet Nam, victory for us in Iraq is defined by small-country politicians who will rise above their petty inside-baseball disputes, and take on the heavy lifting of making their country a decent and safe place to live in, and their government an institution that the people can trust and rely upon. If the Iraqi politicians don’t grow up, we lose.

The wars we’re good at are ones where the enemy climbs into the ring with us for a one-on-one knockdown to the death. Not surprisingly, our enemies have given up on that kind of war, because we always win in the first round. They resort to a war fought over the heads of the people, where they only pop up to fight in ways and at times they think are in their interest, and otherwise, they melt away and hide.

The one thing we didn’t do in Viet Name was hold back. We killed one million people. The only thing we didn’t do was carpet bomb North Vietnamese cities. Unless you think a terroristic air war against civilians is fair play, you’d probably not want to go killing civilians en masse; but if we had, it is not likely to have made any difference to the outcome.

edited – changed “two million” to “one”

One more lesson from Viet Nam

In reply to Ooooops! Not quite right…

Never get involved in a civil war.

This is why we haven’t gone full force into Somalia. And why we limited our actions in Kosovo. In Iraq we are trying to prevent it from becoming a civil war. Though it can be debated that it has turned into a civil war now. In which case it would be time to get out.

As far as the UN goes, Iraq is one of many incidents lately that shows that the UN has become an ineffective institution.

civil war?

In reply to One more lesson from Viet Nam

The Vietnam War started as the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam, and ended with the North Vietnamese conquest of South Vietnam. That sounds like an interstate war to me.

The artificial division of north & south

In reply to civil war?

When the French failed to suppress the Viet Minh, the U.S. got involved in the peace talks, and arranged a division of the country into North & South Viet Nam, with the communist-leaning Viet Minh in the North and a largely Christian bunch of anti-communists, French collaborators, and Viet royalists in the South. We didn’t care who they were or if they constituted a plausible government; all we could see was communists, and Joe Stalin pulling all the strings, and we were gonna fight them.

That’s how the illusion of a South Viet Nam got started.

wrong, oh wrong

In reply to The artificial division of north & south

There are historically 3 Vietnamese-speaking nations in South-East Asia: Tonkin, Annam and Cochin. Since about 200 AD, when Tonkin, a.k.a. North Vietnam, was hived off a couthern Chinese kingdom, it has been trying to conquer Annam and Cochin. Several times Tonkin has conquered Annam and Cochin for a while; once Annam, united with Cochin, conquered Tonkin.
The 3 nations did collaborate in resisting first the Japanese then the returning French. Alas, there were quarrels in the resistance (don’t blame the U.S. for everything, that’s lazy as well as dishonest), and the 2 new states set up had a border about 50 km south of the traditional Tonkin/Annam border. The northern state became a fairly typical communist dictatorship, the southern one a democracy (which is not to say that I approve of its policies). Two years later Tonkinese troops entered SVN. No-one blamed the U.S. until the U.S. was actually involved with ground troops. I learnt to read before the war started and I took some interest in newspaper reports, so I am pretty certain of my facts.

The distinctions are forced

In reply to The artificial division of north & south

After 100 years of French rule, the Vietnamese-speaking parts of Indochina were more of a definable country than any other plausible construction. Most of it was under the dominion of the emporor in Hue before the French ever showed up.

Romanticizing the 100-year bygone traditions of a Vietnamese province is an act of manufacturing history in service of current politics.

The US Lost the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror in 2003

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

I repeat, while our troops have won all of the military battles, the US lost the war in Iraq and capitulated on the global war on terror in 2003 when the Iraqi government fell!

The first folly was invading Iraq in the first place. While it was sold to Congress our allies, and the citizens of the US as the next step in the war on terrorism, the war against Iraq was all about key cabinet members getting from junior what daddy did not let them do in 1990. Remove Saddam from power. Plus, getting US oil interests back in control of the Iraq oil fields.

The second and greater folly was a missing plan to secure Iraq after toppling the government. When the allied forces left the citizens of Iraq on their own after taking out the army and the police they bread the lawlessness that has resulted in the greatest buildup of terrorist forces in modern times.

If we had followed up with a military police force strong enough to impose marshal law as we swept Saddam’s regime from power, Iraq would not be on the brink of an all out civil war.

At this point, 20,000 additional troops is not going to have any significant impact.

The only way to get Iraq under control would be to pull all of our forces to one border and then sweep across the country again. Setting up police forces and marshal law in our wake.

If we don’t have the will to clean up the mess we have created, we should pack up and go home.

Chas

That’s a hell of an idea

In reply to The US Lost the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror in 2003

I like that, and your right.

It would work.

Dan

I see it differently

In reply to The US Lost the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror in 2003

The only war the United States has lost is the political war at home. The Democrats have won the war against President Bush. In the process, they have lost the war against the real enemy. I wonder how history will judge them?

You have but a glimmering of the facts.

In reply to I see it differently

But, in that regard, you are no different from GWB, who wholly failed to understand the complexities of the region, i.e. Sunni vs Shia, Arab vs Persian, secularists vs clerics, etal., and thus failed to have a plan for the [i]control[/i] of Iraq prior to the invasion.

Even many of us “amateurs” recognized that, absent a suitable replacement for Saddam, all hell was going to break lose; it did, and we naysayers now are having the last laugh.

The politics of war

In reply to The US Lost the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror in 2003

If Bush had gone in and declared marshal law, then people like you would be crying about us being the “occupying force” in Iraq, that many dishonest people have tried to claim anyways.

Why are people so afraid of this war?

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

Maybe they’re afraid to admit the scope of the war. Or maybe they’re afraid to admit the severity of this war. Or maybe they have to much invested in the status quo that exists in the middle east. Or maybe they’re afraid to just admit that we’re in a war. I’m puzzled at why the opposing party in the United States will not define a clear and specific alternative to what President Bush has indicated as his goal. They’re certainly vocal enough to be against his vision, but they offer none of their own.

There are those who would like to see the world just get along and all live together in peace and harmony. The problem with such an outlook, however, is that the bad guys won’t participate in their peace song. And be certain about it, there are bad guys to deal with. We can either deal with them or stick our heads in the sand and hope they go away. Who really believes they will simply go away? The world will not be at peace for a long, long time, regardless of how much we wish it to be so, and it’s about time we all admit it.

We can either sit on the sidelines and hope for the impossible, or we can be the driving force in determining the direction we pass on to future generations. This will not be resolved in just a few years, but will linger on for decades. I sure hope we don’t pass onto those future generations the same thing that was passed on to us. This is a fine mess previous generations got us into. I sure don’t want the next ones to say the same thing about us.

The real question is…

In reply to Why are people so afraid of this war?

Why are we so afraid to let Iraq have their civil war? Every country that has ever won it’s independence has followed that fight with a civil war. We “saved” them from Saddam but we cannot save them from themselves. We’re not doing them any favors by fighting this fight for them. They need to get on with the business of figuring out who is going to run their country, and they need us to BTFU.

20,000 more troops are not going to prevent that civil war. 20,000 is a drop in the bucket. We need to either commit enough troops to find and put down all the insurgents (not bloody likely since terrorists are sneaky little bastards) or we need to get the hell out!

Let me answer your question with a question.

In reply to The real question is…

What would have happened if we had let the Koreans battle out amongst themselves their civil war in the early 1950s? It was more than a civil war. It war an ideological war. So is the current one in Iraq.

Compare North Korea of today with its Southern counterpart. Had we not intervened, and if President Truman wouldn’t have gone against “popular opinion”, what would that peninsula look like today? In hindsight, although his popularity rating in 1952 was an abysmal 20 percent, President Truman was right. How President Bush is seen in 50 years, with the benefit of hindsight, remains to be played out. The only question is, what end result would we like to see? The answer to that question should determine the path we follow.

A point of contention Jessie,

In reply to The real question is…

Not every country wins their freedom via a civil war, Australia for one, 6 British colonies voted to become an independent nation. Membership in the commonwealth is voluntary, we’ve has 2 referendums to become a republic, both failed by popular vote.

In fact most countries that left the British empire did so through non violent means. The united states, in reference to civil war and a its split with Brittan is an oddity. Ireland has been in an on again/off again civil war since the Napoleonic era (probably before) and in the end gained its independence via diplomacy not violence.

This is not to say that I disagree that civil war can end in freedom albeit not always (remember Russia), it was the “Every country” part I disagree with.

With regards to the Iraqi civil war, although we started it and that should weigh heavy on those who instigated this disastrous campaign, interfering with their civil war could bring even more disastrous consequences. We can always help rebuild after the civil war has ended, we should just hope this doens’t end like Somalia or Iran.

You are confusing “civil war”

In reply to A point of contention Jessie,

Civil war is completely internal. The US fight against Britain for Independence was not a “civil war”.

Also a note about the “oddity” of the US independence from the British Empire, the non-violent means were NOT employed BEFORE the US fought to be free, now were they? So you really are not portraying the reality of the situation to make it sound like the blood thirsty Americans fought a war instead of voting? If the US had NOT broken away, do you think the then British Empire would have started to pull back their influence so soon?

oh, and our “North vs South” was our civil war.

Ethnic cleansing and invaders is NOT a civil war

In reply to The real question is…

The fighting going on is not for control of government, but an ethnic cleansing because of not choosing the correct flavor of Islam.

You also see invaders (insurgents) coming from Syria and Iran, as well as the Iranian troops that were caught in Iraq fighting coalition forces. When a countries troops attack another country, it is an act of war. Iran has committed that act of war against us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4783688.stm

They don’t want to ADMIT to their vision.

In reply to Why are people so afraid of this war?

[i]I’m puzzled at why the opposing party in the United States will not define a clear and specific alternative to what President Bush has indicated as his goal. They’re certainly vocal enough to be against his vision, but they offer none of their own.[/i]

They cannot acquire or maintain power unless people are suffering (or at least can be convinced that they are). More troops might end the suffering quicker, so it’s a threat to them.

Do you truly believe that?

In reply to They don’t want to ADMIT to their vision.

■

The opposite parties wont admit several things

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

That terrorists will attack us even if we do leave, and would even if we never went. The opposite parties as you have said have not offered nothing in the way to combat terrorism, other then to complain about what President Bush has done. They tie the hands of the government with intelligence gathering, even when the 9/11 commission(bipartisan) stated that was the main cause of that attack.

That the shortage of Oil in America is caused by the general public being addicted to it. If we don’t buy it, then the oil companies can’t sell it and we will not be dependant on foreign countries. The general public is not willing to downsize their transportation, why should the automakers make something that wont sell. The fault lies strictly with the American public in this regard. The Oil fields of Iraq is more then the tree huggers are willing to offer in the form of an alternative that the general public is willing to accept. Accept it, its a fact of life. If either party raises tax’s on oil/gas, they would be crucified out of office.

There has been NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING offered in how or what should be done as an alternative. Either with regard to the United States being dependant on foreign oil or in the war on terrorism. My personal opinion, if they offered alternatives that were achievable. I would not hold them in contempt. That is why I hold the democratic party in contempt, they complain but they will not state or produce anything as a solution to either issue. Hell, look at Kennedy. He doesn’t want alternate forms of energy in the area he lives(wind mills).

We will be at the mercy of terrorist’s and foreign powers until this addiction has been cured. Our sons and daughters will continue dieing on foreign soil until this addiction has been cured. And the general public will do nothing but lay the blame on the government, and not take the responsibility that is theirs.

And yes, I do practice what I preach. My car gets 28 miles to the gallon back and forth to work. When the lease is up, I will get an even more economical vehicle no matter what the price of gas is. How many others will? Will any of you?

Dan

Dealing with terrorsim

In reply to The opposite parties wont admit several things

Dealing with terrorism is not a new issue, other nations have had to deal with it for years, lockerby happened in 1972 and this is not the earliest terrorist occurrence’s in modern times. The best approach is good old fashioned detective work, subtle and effective.

After the war in Iraq, we are no safer than we were when it started. In fact it is quiet the opposite. two reasons stand out:
1. We have created more enemies, not just extremists but the common man in Iraq now has reason for hate against the west.
2. We have alienated possible sources of information amongst the Arabs. Information is without a doubt the single most effective weapon in any kind of war. Where would WWII ended up without Bletchly Park or an American operation in Hawaii (called hut 17 I think).

Lack of information breeds ignorance, ignorance is the chief weapon used by terrorist recruiters. The problem is not that time was wasted on “information gathering” but that no information was actually gathered, which is a failure of intelligence services. I have to ask, how can decisions made from false, partial or completely lacking information be considered a good course of action.

With regard to issue 2

In reply to Dealing with terrorsim

[i]The problem is not that time was wasted on “information gathering” but that no information was actually gathered, which is a failure of intelligence services. I have to ask, how can decisions made from false, partial or completely lacking information be considered a good course of action.[/i]

My contention is that President Bush has put into place programs to acquire information at the source. The oppisition is trying to stop, or throttle, or declare these programs illegal. What you have stated is quite true, sadly so. But, when programs are put in place to address this issue that was reconized by everyone. They are fought at every quarter.

The first point that you raise, I disagree with only for 1 reason. There have been no further attacks on the homeland due to these terrorist’s being tied up in one two locations. But that is only an oppinion that can be justly argued, and I understand that.

Dan

America’s love affair with the gas-guzzler

In reply to The opposite parties wont admit several things

I have just today received the first issue of a new Australian environmental magazine “G.”

Naturally I have not had time to cross-check these figures, but here they are nevertheless.

The US has the highest number of cars (or perhaps motor vehicles — the article just says “cars.”) of any country in the world. 237 million. This is almost one motor car for every man, woman and child.

The single biggest contributor (to global-warming pollution) is the US which has 5 per cent of the world’s population, 30 per cent of the world’s cars, and creates 45 per cent of the world’s automotive greenhouse gas emissions.

If you happen to be an anti tree-hugger, you can overlook the references to greenhouse gas emissions, but the other statistics support your remarks about America’s love affair with gas-guzzling cars.

Nothing you posted addressed “gas-guzzling”

In reply to America’s love affair with the gas-guzzler

In Europe it took the government raping the citizens with outrageous taxes to FORCE the people to drive more economical cars, not some tree-hugger mentality that they are doing it “for the environment”.

A disingenuous contention to try to equate the two, because it is not carried out by the facts.

Your distortional “fact” about families having a car for every “man, woman and child”
seems to intentionally forget to include that children do not drive, so the second or third car is PARKED and not responsible for ANY pollution while the other cars are driven.

Number of cars OWNED in the US does not equal out to number of cars running and causing the alleged “45 per cent of the world’s automotive greenhouse gas emissions.” You can not make that calculation based on the very shallow and misleading stats.

There are also a lot of people that own vehicles but take mass transit to get to and from work because you can’t drive in and out of cities like New York or Chicago, and parking is expensive and hard to come by. Again, parked cars do not pollute.

I currently own one car, two trucks, and a motorcycle. I have never driven more than one at a time.

And yes, my work car gets 32 mpg. (51.52 Km per gallon/ or 13 Km per liter if I did my conversions correctly.)

What a load of crap, BS and codswallop

In reply to Nothing you posted addressed “gas-guzzling”

Of course children don’t own cars. A lot of other people CHOOSE not to own a car, so of course many people own two or more cars.

Of COURSE each person can only drive one vehicle at a time.

Please note my disclaimer:

[i]”If you happen to be an anti tree-hugger, you can overlook the references to greenhouse gas emissions, [b]but the other statistics support your remarks about America’s love affair with gas-guzzling cars.”[/b][/i]

So you are an anti tree-hugger and have made a knee-jerk response without reading the post.

BTW although SUVs are popular in Sydney for the small proportion of people who can afford them, the original American gas-guzzlers disappeared off the Australian market about 40 years ago.

Because there is a high tax on petrol in Australia, the majority of people for all this time have owned medium-sized family cars or small cars.

Currently petrol costs around $US 4 per gallon. And you guys get upset if it rises above $ 1 per gallon.

petty jealousy?

In reply to What a load of crap, BS and codswallop

jealousy that the people can’t AFFORD to one an SUV and jealousy that people can’t AFFORD petrol.

And it is you that seems unclear here. A love affair with vehicles yes, but it is your ignorant and biased “gas-guzzling” comment that is out of place. The majority of the vehicles are not “gas-guzzling”.

It even shows where you are coming from. Why did you not refer to them as “petrol-guzzling”, as the generic term of “gas” does not seem to be common on “that side of the pond”?

Can’t afford the petrol or vehicles? Look at your own governments, and the corruption in the name of doing good is placing undue tax burden on this. I get a fillup for $30 and that will take me over 400 miles. That same tank of “petrol” would cost $60.

The scary thing is, our tax-n-spend Democrats WERE talking about doing the same lecherous thing until the price of gas shot up without them. Now these same Democrats are complaining about the price of gas. They want the high price, they just don’t like it that someone else is getting the money instead of them, (unlike your government?)

Gas-guzzling

In reply to petty jealousy?

We use the term over here, too. It’s alliterative, the words begin with the same letter, and the tabloid papers just [b]love[/b] alliteration. We get enough US TV shows so that we’re all familiar with “gas”, even though it isn’t (a gas, that is).

Provided by NITS ™ so that the flow of international argument is not impeded.

:p

And just going to make my point

In reply to Gas-guzzling

That he was just parroting what he had heard from the US, without any understanding of the reality. Dispite what the media says, the majority of our vehicles are not SUV’s. Because they are pricier, they get a lot of attention, and it is very fashionable right now for whack-jobs to run around slamming them.

Not sure if you remember Senator John Kerry in the last election started to rail about the gas-guzzling SUV’s. Someone then asked him if he owned one. After it came out that yes, he did, “oh, that is the families SUV.”

Julian is also less likely to question the media, as he seems to think they are still trustworthy. And the tooth fairy brings you a quarter every time you lose a tooth…..

More gas-guzzling…

In reply to Gas-guzzling

[b]We[/b] have Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London. He’s a man who takes it all a little too far even for me. However, as we are a democracy, we get the option to vote him out but I don’t believe that it will happen. What we have in the UK now is a slightly different social attitude towards large autos of any sort which means that they are now fair game.

I’m glad that I don’t own one – the resale value will have hit the floor!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm

US$45 per day to bring a big 4×4 into London during the week will pretty soon be the cost. And no reduction if you live inside the charge boundary so that’s US$45 any day you get your car out of its garage onto the highway – even just to wash it!

If you go to the link, notice the references to “gas-guzzlers” – and this is the BBC!

“congestion charge scheme”

In reply to Gas-guzzling

Scheme = a plan or program of action; especially : a crafty or secret one.

It would be interesting to see what grade of vehicles your government officials drive, and what THEY are charged under these “schemes”.

It always makes me wonder how insane people get voted into positions of power.

Speaking of, it was interesting that at the bottom of the page is a link that discusses who is joining the race for the 2008 US Presidential election. Too funny.

Congestion Charge and other things

In reply to Gas-guzzling

is absolutely the diabolical brainchild of “Red Ken” and it’s likely to be adopted everywhere there’s a city strapped for cash. Watch for it in a city near you! Soon! It was his main policy when he was voted in as Mayor and when he was re-elected. Nothing secret about it at all. cameras everywhere that read your number plate. I hate it and I won’t ever pay it so I only ever drive in Town at weekends.

The problem with Ken is there’s little effective opposition. He actually won his first term without any political party backing.

By the way, he [b]hates[/b] your embassy – and says so – because they refuse to pay the charge and this despite your government expressing admiration for the way the scheme works. I believe that US embassy officials owe around US$1.6m in unpaid charges.

Neil

I read the link about Iranian forces and I wasn’t surprised. I’ve always believed that Iran was the danger in the ME and that Iraq was a counter to them. I believe that one of the covert reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to get a whole load of troops just next door. I just think that everyone responsible got it really, really wrong about the sort of welcome they would get and how easy it would be to stabilise Iraq.

Too little, too late

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

More troops on the ground in Iraq isn’t going to do anything except increase American casualties because the new Iraq government is unwilling or unable to crack down on the militias that are causing the violence. Al-Maliki has not been able to politically unite the country’s Shia, Sunni and Kurds.

America has done our part in the war. We removed Saddam and his 2 demented sons. We helped the Iraqis establish a democratic government. Everything fell apart though, because the Iraqis are so divided that they now have a civil war. I think its their war to fight and its time for them to stand up and fight for their freedom. They need to resolve their differences.

I also think Al-Qaida is there now when it wasn’t before, but the majority of the fighting is between the various Iraqi factions all fighting for their piece of the Iraqi pie (oil revenues).

America is trying to prop up Iraq, but I’m not so hopeful that the Iraqis are up to the fight. They don’t seem to want to stand up.

Bush sank America into a quagmire that we can’t win no matter what we do because it isn’t up to us. Its up to the Iraqis. Bush’s legacy, that he values so much, is dependant on the Iraqis. I’ll remember Bush as the worst President we ever had.

Why do you think Bush is thinking about his “legacy”?

In reply to Too little, too late

I think just the opposite. Agree with him or not, he’s doing what he truly believes is the right thing, and he will let the chips of his “legacy” fall where they may. I’ve never seen ANYONE say the same thing you just did. What makes you believe such a thing? President Bush’s own actions would suggest you are wrong.

Of course he thinks about his legacy

In reply to Why do you think Bush is thinking about his “legacy”?

Every President does. He doesn’t want to be remembered as the President who made Iraq worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. Here’s a link to an interview with Brian Williams where he talks about legacy (search on legacy to find the excerpt http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14576012/

I think Bush wants so badly to be remembered as the President that brought democracy to the middle east that he is unwilling to change course because that would suggest he was wrong.

legacy of democracy

In reply to Of course he thinks about his legacy

If Dubya wanted a legacy of a democratic Middle East he would start by insisting that the Israelis remove from their electoral law the provision that no party may run which wants to end the “Jewish nature” of the state and also let home the exiles of 1948, who are by the terms of the Partition Resolution Israeli citizens but who are held in disenfranchised exile.

That’s freakin stupid, no kidding john

In reply to legacy of democracy

[i]start by insisting that the Israelis remove from their electoral law the provision that no party may run which wants to end the “Jewish nature”[/i]

What, are you advocating the demise of Israel of a sovereign nation by the statement that they remove that from their constitution? Sure sounds like that. That is called survival, nothing else.

Good god, just by your statement that you feel they should remove that inidicates you are in favor of them constantly being attacked.

Dan

constitution

In reply to That’s freakin stupid, no kidding john

Having it in the constitution is not the point; having it in the electoral law is. Any state which limits the opinions allowed into the electoral fray is ipso facto not democratic. Furthermore, I was looking not so much from the Israeli viewpoint as from Dubya’s: he does not want the Israeli state to be democratic.

The point is you said it

In reply to constitution

I don’t care where it spelled out in the laws of Israel. When you have multiple nations stating publicly that your nation should be removed from the face of the earth. Anywhere you place it in the law is quite appropriate that these individuals have no legislative rights seems quite appropriate.

Ok, example. George, your neighbor says you should die. Has publicly said it over and over. Publicly, privately, in writing, and in the desecration of your possessions. All at once, you build a bomb shelter to protect you and your family from a proven chemical attack from said terrorists. George now wants you to listen to his design considerations because he also wants to use your bomb shelter.

Going to let him? No, I expect you wouldn’t. Your not going to give him any rights in the way you run your house or the way you protect yourself. He is one of the reasons you are building it, he is a wack job. And you tell Israel which has the same issue, bunch of fkn wack jobs wanting them dead. To not state in any law, where ever it fkn is. That these people should not have any rights?

Come on, get serious. Your the Dubya in my eyes after that statement.

Dan

Oh, but we don’t do that here in ths U.S.?

In reply to constitution

You may wish to take a hard look at the various States’ laws, and witness the deliberate and blatant laws aimed at keeping 3rd Party candidates off the ballots.

You might see http://www.greencommons.org/node/283

constitution

In reply to That’s freakin stupid, no kidding john

Having it in the constitution is not the point; having it in the electoral law is. Any state which limits the opinions allowed into the electoral fray is ipso facto not democratic. Furthermore, I was looking not so much from the Israeli viewpoint as from Dubya’s: he does not want the Israeli state to be democratic.

Thats not on his agenda

In reply to legacy of democracy

He wants Iraq to be a “beacon of hope” in the middle east. A democratic muslim country that will set an example to other countries in the region.

Here’s an excerpt from GWB’s 6/05 speech. “A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition’s goals in Iraq. I said that America’s mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend — a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government. We would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005. We would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy. We would encourage more international support for Iraq’s democratic transition, and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.”

I agree,

In reply to Thats not on his agenda

democracy as such is not on Dubya’s agenda.

After reading your last comment

In reply to I agree,

I don’t want your defination of democracy.

And I will do as I always do, and vote against it.

Dan

Israel and the Jews. . . . .

In reply to legacy of democracy

…..is obviously your pet-peeve issue. You talk about Israel and the Jews as much as I talk about individual liberty (my “pet peeve” issue). Why is that? Where are you coming from, and why do all paths apparently lead to that issue?

Agree with the president or not

In reply to Of course he thinks about his legacy

I believe that he is doing what he thinks is the right thing, and he’s just letting all the chips fall where they may, whether those be the chips of public opinion, partisan attacks, or a legacy. He’s not letting any of those things affect his decisions.

Yes, he is doing what he wants

In reply to Agree with the president or not

I think he would send even more troops if he had the support of Congress and the American people. In the end, I don’t know what more we can do if the Iraqis won’t stand up and defend their own country. Its just an unbelievably awful situation.

The Iraq’is dont

In reply to Yes, he is doing what he wants

because the country has no sense of itself right now. The Govt. is untrustworthy and was put together by us suspicious foreigners. At one time there was a majority rule for a temporary govt. which the US and Britian would not allow to take control because it was not in ‘our best interest’. This is about the time that the violence grew.
The Iraqi people need to come together, or Iraq needs to be split up into other territories\countries. The Shi’ites will not tolerate the Sunni’s to take control again, and the Sunni’s dont want to let the Shi’ites in power. Then there is a 3rd (I forgot what they are called right now, must be alzheimers or some crap), who also want their own ruling party. At least they arent in the midst of violence nearly as much as the Sunni and Shi’ite.
If Iraq is split into 3 countries, it could still take many years to stabilize. Removing our troops now is a bad idea, but I agree that their roles should be stepped back and the Iraqi govt. should be given the responsibility to rule on their own. Our forces should be there to help quell major violence and help stop a civil war.
The Civil War cannot happen because the main problem with this is that Al’Queda will still be there along with other terrorist groups. The funding for this civil war, and government leadership afterwards will be by the largest terrorist groups. Then the terrorist leadership afterwards will need to be dealt with as well. So allowing the civil war will basically just delay our troops in the area, and allow for genocide to happen.

I dont have the answer, but I have one possible scenario, to split Iraq, and establish 3 new governments.

Iraq is already in civil war

In reply to The Iraq’is dont

The deep religious hatreds between Sunnis and Shiites has been there for a thousand years. Now they are free to fight. The Kurds (the 3rd group) seem to be outside of that.

Nothing will work in Iraq unless the Sunnis and Shiites resolve their religious differences or at least learn to tolerate each other. America accomplished their objectives. We removed Saddam, helped establish a constitution and a government. People voted. Its time for the Iraq government to stand up and take control of the country. If the Iraqis don’t like their government, they can vote them out just like we do. Al-Maliki said he will not seek a 2nd term (who would?).

I don’t think we can remove our troops immediately because Iraq will collapse into worse chaos than exists already, but we don’t need to send more troops into harms way either. The Iraqis are hell bent on killing each other over their religious differences and its up to their government to get control of the situation.

It will take a political solution between the fighting factions and the Iraq government. At this point, its their country, their responsibility to resolve their differences. We can’t, no one can but them.

Yes, I agree that we should’nt

In reply to The Iraq’is dont

send more troops, and that we should start a slow withdrawel while handing over responsibilities to the Iraqi govt.
But, it takes time for any govt. to truly gain the power that is needed to control the situation. All partied involved need to be responsive to talks, and for their religious leaders and key people to help out to regain stability in any form. This is clearly not happening, and we cannot kill off these leaders or it will make things worse. The Iraqi govt. is mostly powerless because these key individuals want the instability to try to overthrow the current Govt. soon.

So, the options are few right now. Staying in Iraq is bad, but leaving is worse. Somehow we need to convince Sunni and Shi’ite community leaders that this govt. is in their best interest, or start working on plans to create several countries with these leaders.

The only way to obtain peace there at this point is to work with the community and religous leaders to find some common grounds to begin negotiations.
These negotiations would need to include Power, Water, Jobs for Iraqi’s. It should be to reduce foreign workers while training nationals to work on the improvements of their country.
Conditions in Iraq must get better before the people will start to listen, and for the leaders to trust that we are working for their benefit.
So far it seems that the strategy is based more on intrusion and destruction. Of course they are going to retaliate.

Saving face or tearing his heart out?

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070111/ids_photos_ts/r3828336413.jpg

Oh sure, he is crying

In reply to Saving face or tearing his heart out?

But can you read his mind? Do you know WHY he is crying? Could it be that he knows that it was his botched up invasion of Iraq that caused the death of Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham?

Has George Bush shed a tear for every one of the 3,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq up to this time?

Has George Bush shed a tear for every one of the 3,000 American soldiers?

In reply to Oh sure, he is crying

My guess is yes.

I knew you were going to post such a message, because you’re such a mean-spirited person.

Your guess is yes

In reply to Has George Bush shed a tear for every one of the 3,000 American soldiers?

Wishful thinking Max because you can’t face the reality that your hero has feet of clay.

Now how could you possibly “KNOW” that I would post such a message?

You post a picture that is calculatedly very biased in favour of your point of view, and you don’t like it when I post a rebuttal.

Mean spirited?

In reply to Has George Bush shed a tear for every one of the 3,000 American soldiers?

You could not bring yourself to post even one word about my meeting with Gret.

And you call ME mean spirited?

Face it Max. Bush is a disaster, his administration continues to be a disaster, and this is the man of whom you said almost four years ago: “He is the best person to fill the office (of president) in 100 years.”

You were wrong Max. Live with it and stop compensating for your disillusionment by making little pokes at me. Well they are jokes rather than pokes really, given the overall context.

Boob for tat

In reply to Saving face or tearing his heart out?

Yes, bluddy stupid auto censor asterisked out
t_i_t

You post a picture, I post an article. Yes I am sure you hate Amy Goodman, which has nothing to do with the content of the interview.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/11/1536236

I’ve never heard of Amy Goodman before this.

In reply to Boob for tat

I did a quick Internet search, however, to get an idea of who she (and democracynow)is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Goodman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!

[i]”radio’s voice of the disenfranchised left” and a book co-written by a Mother Jones writer.

“It often highlights stories and perspectives that are overlooked or bypassed in mainstream news coverage, notably those of antiwar activists and conscientious objectors.”[/i]

Okay, so what’s your point?

Amy Goodman

In reply to I’ve never heard of Amy Goodman before this.

I am very surprised that you have not heard of Amy Goodman and her “disenfranchised left” radio station Democracy Now. I was told about this radio station about two years ago by an Australian friend.

I receive emails from the website which I sometimes use for stories on my own website.

What is my point? I assumed that you would not trust or give credibility to anything that was so blatantly left-wing and anti the administration.

You always will “blame Bush”, regardless of anything

In reply to Boob for tat

But I blame people like you and other nations who continue to deny what the real war is all about and who the real enemy is. America’s Democrats have been fighting this war, alright, but their enemy is, and always has been, President Bush. I’ll be the first to admit that we don’t have a united front. If we did, it would be a different story entirely. You people just don’t get it.

And you, Julian, sitting on your lazy ass, sponging off other citizens. Your own self-absorbed lifestyle proves that you can’t see past your own selfish interests and self-gratification. Why should you care what kind of world we have in the future? Criticism from you should be worn like a badge of honor.

Again, I state that the blame should fall with the American Public

In reply to You always will “blame Bush”, regardless of anything

The American public is unwilling to wean itself from foreign energy dependacy. The American public feel’s it is justified in it’s gluttony of energy resources.

1). Auto industries can’t be blamed when they rightfully don’t want to produce products that the American public won’t buy. Ie: Smaller vehicles.

2). Now that gas price’s have dropped, the American Public is no longer clammoring for alternate fuels. If the American public really cared, they would still be pressing this issue. The issue should address both energy used for transpertation and also heating, electricity, and other energy used in this nation.

3). The American military would not be placed in action as much as it is if it wasn’t for the stragic importance of foreign energy to this nations survival. The foreign countries that support terrorisom and the terrorist’s themselves would not have such a deadly affect of the United States if we was not so dependant on foreign energy supplies. all though, I still think they would attack us because we wasn’t buy their products and they would blame us for their countries being in poverity.

Nobody is to blame but the American public itself. And untill that realization has arived, our sons and daughters will continue to be placed in harms way.

Dan

“sponging off other citizens”

In reply to You always will “blame Bush”, regardless of anything

Well, well, well. When I first posted here that I was receiving a disability pension for nervous disorder, you said that was OK in my situation.

Far from “sitting on my lazy ass” in my “self-absorbed lifestyle” I work very hard publishing a number of websites which reach a wide audience.

I am in the process of setting up a new website: http://thirdworldorphans.org

And why am I doing this — all at my own expense? Because affluent a$$holes like yourself and probably most Westerners are totally unaware of and oblivious to the horrendous conditions which exist in third world countries.

Because of corrupt administrations and civil wars, the people in Africa especially were in a pretty bad situation BEFORE AIDS took hold and is now killing millions of people and leaving many, many millions of young children orphaned with no hope of any kind of life.

There is no “self-absorbed lifestyle” because apart from some part-time gardening work that I do, almost all my time is spent on my various websites which cover various areas of interest.

As for “always blaming Bush,” that is not the case. I regard Bush as a puppet and Dick Cheney as the puppet master.

If my memory serves me — as it usually does — it was Dick Cheney who ignored the advice of the military command and sent half as many troops to Iraq as were recommended.

I did not blame you now did i, I blamed the american public

In reply to “sponging off other citizens”

Get off your high horse because you are twisting the words to meet your own situation.

I addressed american citizens and the energy crisis.

How does that in any manner have anything to do with you?

Personally, I feel all this blame does reside with the american public. Not other countries, so what are you bitching at me for?

Dan

Droolin, please read my post again

In reply to I did not blame you now did i, I blamed the american public

You will surely see that it was addressed entirely to Maxwell.

You can see from the position of my post that it was addressing Max’s post and not yours.

You will also see further up the discussion that I have made a post about America’s love affair with “gas-guzzling” cars.

So get of YOUR high horse and pay attention to which post I am addressing.

Why an increase in troop levels may work

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

Some of you know that I am no fan of George Bush. However, the increase in troop levels may work. The reason is that from the start of the war we did not have the troop levels to hold any location. The military swept in, destroyed any force that opposed them.

Since then it has been like a never ending game of Whack-a-mole. The military slaps an group of insurgents in one location and it pops up in another location. So the idea here is to hit the insurgents in a location and keep troops there so that they do not reappear in that location.

The next question is how will a mere 20000 troops help in a country the size of Iraq. The answer to that is according to an NPR story I heard earlier this week over 80% of the insurgent violence in Iraq is in Baghdad Province. If they keep the 20000 troops in Baghdad they should be able to secure the area. Then that gives the Iraq government time to get setup and repair the infrastructure. Then the 20000 can be redeployed to other areas in which we are playing Whack-a-mole.

Maybe; maybe not.

In reply to Why an increase in troop levels may work

For an in depth analysis, see http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=208168&messageID=2151857

Unlikely to do any lasting good

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

The war will be won, for Americans, when the Iraqi government gets into the fight, and stops playing as though security were something that can be bargained away, and allowing Shiite militias to operate under the cover of the police and army. The war will be won for Iraqis, assuming there ever is somebody who calls himself “Iraqi” instead of “Sunni” or “Shiite”, when the populace becomes too busy making money and having fun to participate even vicariously in the conflict.

If this is what victory is, its attainment will have little to do with another American infantry division cruising the streets in sunglasses, looking for someone to shoot. It depends on Iraqis acting in ways like nothing they are used to.

If, however, we were able to get such a civic spirit in the Iraqis, would we be able to recognize it as a victory, and break off our engagement? I don’t know. President Bush has never clearly stated the war’s objectives; if he has an opportunity to get out clean, will he take it, or just linger around waiting for it to get better? Does he know what we’re there for, any more than does the man on the American street?

Well, let us examine the alternatives.

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

While I have always maintained, even prior to its having happened, that our incursion into Iraq would be a grave mistake, the fact now is that we are there, and must now make the best of a bad situation.

Rather than be accused of offering up some “liberal” tripe, I shall quote from a source that even maxwell holds in high regard, George Friedman.

=================================================================

Strategic Forecasting

GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
01.04.2007

[b]The ‘Surge Strategy’: Political Arguments and Military Realities[/b]
By George Friedman

U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing a new strategy for Iraq. According to reports being leaked to the media, the primary option being considered is a “surge strategy,” in which U.S. troop levels in Iraq would be increased, particularly in the Baghdad region. The numbers of additional troops that would deploy — or that would not be rotated home — are unclear, but appear to be in the low tens of thousands. This “surge” strategy is interesting in that it runs counter to general expectations after the midterm elections in November, when it appeared that the president was tied to a phased withdrawal plan. Instead, Bush seems to have decided to attempt to break out of the military gridlock in which the United States finds itself. Therefore, the questions now are why the president is considering this strategy and whether it will work.

As we have discussed previously, the United States appears to have four strategic options in Iraq:

1. Massively increase the number of troops in Iraq, attempting to break the back of both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias and create room for a political settlement.

2. Begin a withdrawal process that allows the Iraqis to shape the politics of the country as they will — and that leaves a huge opportunity for Iran to fill the vacuum.

3. Abandon attempts to provide security for Iraq but retain forces there, in a redeployed posture, with the goal of blocking any potential Iranian moves toward the Arabian Peninsula.

4. Attempt to reach a political accommodation with Tehran that concedes Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence, in order to provide guarantees against Iranian expansion southward. This diplomatic option is compatible with all others.

Each of these options has strengths and weakness. The first option, the surge, rests on the assumption that the United States has enough troops available to make a difference on the ground in Iraq; it also would decrease the strategic reserve for dealing with other crises around the world. The phased withdrawal option eliminates the need for Iraqi Shia and Iran to engage in political discussion — since, given time, U.S. forces would depart from Iraq and the Shia would be the dominant force. The blocking strategy puts the United States in the position of protecting Saudi Arabia (a Sunni kingdom that doesn’t want to appear to be seeking such protection) against Iran — a Shiite state that could, in that situation, choose the time and place for initiating conflict. In other words, this option would put U.S. forces on a strategic defensive in hostile areas. The fourth option, diplomacy, assumes some basis for a U.S.-Iranian understanding and a mechanism for enforcing agreements. In short, there are no good choices — only a series of bad ones. But, for the United States, doing nothing is also a choice, and the current posture is untenable.

The president appears to have chosen a variation on the troop surge. But it is a variation with an important difference. He has not proposed a surge that would increase the number of troops in Iraq by an order of magnitude. Indeed, he cannot propose that, inasmuch as he does not have several hundred thousand troops standing by — and to the extent that forces are standing by, he cannot afford to strip the strategic reserve completely. It is a big world, and other crises can emerge suddenly. The surge the president is proposing appears to be on the order of around 10,000 troops — and certainly no more than 20,000. Even at the upper limit, that is not so much a surge as a modest increase. It is, however, the best that can be done under the circumstances.

[b]The Political Logic[/b]

The president’s logic appears to be as follows:

While it is impossible to double the size of the force in Iraq — for reasons of manpower, logistics and politics — it is possible to massively increase the force available in the key area of Iraq: Baghdad. If this increase were to include a reshuffling of forces already in-country in a way that would double the number deployed to Baghdad, it might be possible to achieve a strategic victory there, thus setting the stage for a political settlement that would favor American interests.

Behind this thinking is a psychological assumption. Over the past year, it has become conventional wisdom that the U.S. strategy in Iraq has failed and that it is simply a matter of time until U.S. forces withdraw. Under these circumstances, the United States has been marginalized in Iraq. No one expects Washington to be able to threaten the interests of various parties, and no one expects meaningful American guarantees. The Iraqis do not see the United States as being a long-term player in Iraq, or as relevant to the current political crisis there. Iran, Iraq’s powerful Shiite neighbor, seems much more relevant and important. But the Sunnis, not viewing the Americans as a long-term factor in Iraq, cannot turn to the United States for protection even if they fear the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia. The conventional wisdom is that the United States has failed, knows it has failed and is out of options.

Unless the Americans are prepared to simply walk away, the assumptions of the players in and around Iraq must change. From Bush’s standpoint, the United States must demonstrate that it does have options, and that the president’s hands are not tied politically in Washington. If he can demonstrate that he can still shape U.S. policy, that the United States has the ability to increase forces in Iraq — confounding expectations — and that it can achieve victories, at least on the local level, the psychology in Iraq and Iran will change and the United States will at least be able to participate in shaping Iraq’s political future instead of being simply a bystander. If the president can increase the forces in Iraq and not be blocked by the Democrats, then the assumption that the Republicans’ political defeat in November cripples Bush’s power on the larger stage would be dispelled. Therefore, surge the forces.

[b]The Military Perspective[/b]

The plan has come under sharp attack, however — particularly from the Army and apparently from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan is primarily political in nature: It would use U.S. forces as a lever to achieve a psychological shift and create a particular political environment. Viewed from a strictly military standpoint, however, it makes no sense. Now, war is about politics, but from the Joint Chiefs’ standpoint, the military weakness of the plan obviates potential political benefits. The generals appear to have made the following criticisms:

* The size of the surge cannot achieve any meaningful military result. Even a surge of hundreds of thousands of troops would not guarantee success in a counterinsurgency operation. This surge is too little, too late.

* The United States already has surged forces into Baghdad, and the operation was regarded as a failure. Counterinsurgency operations in an urban setting are difficult, and the Americans are dealing with multiple Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents, criminal groups and hostile neighborhoods in the capital. Achieving military success here is unlikely, and the strategy would lead to casualties without victory.

* Surging fresh troops into Baghdad would create major command-and-control problems. The entire structure of areas of responsibility, intelligence distribution and tasking, chains of command and so on would have to be shifted in a very short period of time for the president’s strategy to work. Transitioning new troops — who are not familiar with the area for which they would be responsible — into a counterinsurgency operation in a city of about 5 million would create endless opportunities for confusion, fratricide and failure. A “surge” connotes “fast,” and this transition should not be undertaken quickly.

* The U.S. Army in particular is stretched to the limit. Failure to massively increase the size of the Army has meant that the force that existed in 2003 has had to carry the load of this war through multiple deployments. The president’s strategy necessarily would increase the duration of several deployments for Army and Marine forces. Between concerns about morale and retention, maintaining equipment in the theater and simple effectiveness after long periods of deployment, the United States is at the limits of what it can do. Surging forces in an operation that is unlikely to succeed creates failure throughout the military system. No increase in U.S. forces generally, if committed to now, would impact the system for months or even years.

* There is little or no reserve available in practical terms. A 10-division military force, deployed the way it is, means that five divisions are in Iraq at any given time, and the other five are either recovering or preparing to go there. The United States is already vulnerable should other crises crop up in the world, and a surge into Iraq now would simply exacerbate that condition.

What we have here, therefore, is a divergence between political reality and military reality.

[b]The Upshot[/b]

Politically, the Americans cannot leave Iraq unless Washington is prepared to allow Iran to assume dominance in Iraq and the region. That is politically unacceptable. A redeployment under the current circumstances would create a hostage force in Iraq, rather than a powerful regional strike force. The United States must redefine the politics of the region before it can redeploy. To do this, it must use the forces available in one last try — regardless of the condition of the forces or even the improbability of success — to shift the psychology of the other players. Too much is at stake not to take the risk.

Militarily, even a temporary success in Baghdad is doubtful — and if it can be achieved, the gains would be temporary. They also would come at substantial cost to the force structure and the American strategic posture. Any political success in Iraq would be vitiated by the military cost. Indeed, the Iraqis and Iranians have a sophisticated understanding of U.S. military capability and will understand that the Americans cannot sustain a “surged” posture (and likely would pursue their own strategies on the basis of that understanding). Thus, the U.S. operation at best would lead to a transitory military improvement; at worst, it would inflict substantial casualties on U.S. forces while actually weakening the U.S. military position overall.

If the military argument wins, then the United States must select from options two through four. Politically, this means that Iraq would become a Shiite state under the heavy influence of Iran. If the political argument wins, it means the United States will continue with military operations that are unlikely to achieve their desired ends. Neither option is palatable. The president now must choose between them.

He appears to have chosen a high-risk military operation in hopes of retrieving the United States’ political position. Given what has been risked, this is not an irrational point of view, even if it is a tough position to take. It is possible that the surge would lead to perceptions that the United States is an unpredictable player that retains unexpected options, and that discounting it prematurely is unwise. The strategy could bring some Shia to the table as a hedge, or perhaps even lead to a political solution in Iraq. Even if the probability of this happening is low, the cost is bearable — and given what has already been invested, from Bush’s standpoint, it is a necessary move.

Of course, the problem every gambler has when he is losing is the fear that if he leaves the table, he will lose his chance at recouping his losses. Every gambler, when he is down, faces the temptation of taking his dwindling chips and trying to recoup. He figures that it’s worth the risk. And it could be. He could get lucky. But more frequently, he compounds his earlier losses by losing the money for his cab ride home.

We can divine the president’s reasoning. Nothing succeeds like success and, indeed, he might pull the winning card. If the strategy fails, the United States will have added to its military weakness somewhat, but not catastrophically. But the question is this: Will the president be in a position to get up from the table if this surge fails, or will he keep pulling chips out of his pocket in the hope that he can recoup?

That is the question this strategy does not answer.

Distribution and Reprints

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc..

? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

And now, the game is Iran’s to win or lose.

In reply to More bloodshed in Iraq so that Bush can save face?

Strategic Forecasting

GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
01.16.2007

Rhetoric and Reality: The View from Iran
By George Friedman

The Iraq war has turned into a duel between the United States and Iran. For the United States, the goal has been the creation of a generally pro-American coalition government in Baghdad — representing Iraq’s three major ethnic communities. For Iran, the goal has been the creation of either a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad or, alternatively, the division of Iraq into three regions, with Iran dominating the Shiite south.

The United States has encountered serious problems in creating the coalition government. The Iranians have been primarily responsible for that. With the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June, when it appeared that the Sunnis would enter the political process fully, the Iranians used their influence with various Iraqi Shiite factions to disrupt that process by launching attacks on Sunnis and generally destabilizing the situation. Certainly, Sunnis contributed to this, but for much of the past year, it has been the Shia, supported by Iran, that have been the primary destabilizing force.

So long as the Iranians continue to follow this policy, the U.S. strategy cannot succeed. The difficulty of the American plan is that it requires the political participation of three main ethnic groups that are themselves politically fragmented. Virtually any substantial group can block the success of the strategy by undermining the political process. The Iranians, however, appear to be in a more powerful position than the Americans. So long as they continue to support Shiite groups within Iraq, they will be able to block the U.S. plan. Over time, the theory goes, the Americans will recognize the hopelessness of the undertaking and withdraw, leaving Iran to pick up the pieces. In the meantime, the Iranians will increasingly be able to dominate the Shiite community and consolidate their hold over southern Iraq. The game appears to go to Iran.

Americans are extremely sensitive to the difficulties the United States faces in Iraq. Every nation-state has a defining characteristic, and that of the United States is manic-depression, cycling between insanely optimistic plans and total despair. This national characteristic tends to blind Americans to the situation on the other side of the hill. Certainly, the Bush administration vastly underestimated the difficulties of occupying Iraq — that was the manic phase. But at this point, it could be argued that the administration again is not looking over the other side of the hill at the difficulties the Iranians might be having. And it is useful to consider the world from the Iranian point of view.

The Foundation of Foreign Policy

It is important to distinguish between the rhetoric and the reality of Iranian foreign policy. As a general principle, this should be done with all countries. As in business, rhetoric is used to shape perceptions and attempt to control the behavior of others. It does not necessarily reveal one’s true intentions or, more important, one’s capabilities. In the classic case of U.S. foreign policy, Franklin Roosevelt publicly insisted that the United States did not intend to get into World War II while U.S. and British officials were planning to do just that. On the other side of the equation, the United States, during the 1950s, kept asserting that its goal was to liberate Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union, when in fact it had no plans, capabilities or expectations of doing so. This does not mean the claims were made frivolously — both Roosevelt and John Foster Dulles had good reasons for posturing as they did — but it does mean that rhetoric is not a reliable indicator of actions. Thus, the purple prose of the Iranian leadership cannot be taken at face value.

To get past the rhetoric, let’s begin by considering Iran’s objective geopolitical position.

Historically, Iran has faced three enemies. Its oldest enemy was to the west: the Arab/Sunni threat, against which it has struggled for millennia. Russia, to the north, emerged as a threat in the late 19th century, occupying northern Iran during and after World War II. The third enemy has worn different faces but has been a recurring threat since the time of Alexander the Great: a distant power that has intruded into Persian affairs. This distant foreign power — which has at times been embodied by both the British and the Americans — has posed the greatest threat to Iran. And when the element of a distant power is combined with one of the other two traditional enemies, the result is a great global or regional power whose orbit or influence Iran cannot escape. To put that into real terms, Iran can manage, for example, the chaos called Afghanistan, but it cannot manage a global power that is active in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously.

For the moment, Russia is contained. There is a buffer zone of states between Iran and Russia that, at present, prevents Russian probes. But what Iran fears is a united Iraq under the influence or control of a global power like the United States. In 1980, the long western border of Iran was attacked by Iraq, with only marginal support from other states, and the effect on Iran was devastating. Iran harbors a rational fear of attack from that direction, which — if coupled with American power — could threaten Iranian survival.

Therefore, Iran sees the American plan to create a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad as a direct threat to its national interests. Now, the Iranians supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; they wanted to see their archenemy, former President Saddam Hussein, deposed. But they did not want to see him replaced by a pro-American regime. Rather, the Iranians wanted one of two outcomes: the creation of a pro-Iranian government dominated by Iraqi Shia (under Iran’s control), or the fragmentation of Iraq. A fragmented Iraq would have two virtues. It would prove no danger to Iran, and Iran likely would control or heavily influence southern Iraq, thus projecting its power from there throughout the Persian Gulf.

Viewed this way, Iran’s behavior in Iraq is understandable. A stable Iraq under U.S. influence represents a direct threat to Iran, while a fragmented or pro-Iranian Iraq does not. Therefore, the Iranians will do whatever they can to undermine U.S. attempts to create a government in Baghdad. Tehran can use its influence to block a government, but it cannot — on its own — create a pro-Iranian one. Therefore, Iran’s strategy is to play spoiler and wait for the United States to tire of the unending conflict. Once the Americans leave, the Iranians can pick up the chips on the table. Whether it takes 10 years or 30, the Iranians assume that, in the end, they will win. None of the Arab countries in the region has the power to withstand Iran, and the Turks are unlikely to get into the game.

The Unknown Variables

Logic would seem to favor the Iranians. But in the past, the Iranians have tried to be clever with great powers and, rather than trapping them, have wound up being trapped themselves. Sometimes they have simply missed other dimensions of the situation. For example, when the revolutionaries overthrew the Shah and created the Islamic Republic, the Iranians focused on the threat from the Americans, and another threat from the Soviets and their covert allies in Iran. But they took their eyes off Iraq — and that miscalculation not only cost them huge casualties and a decade of economic decay, but broke the self-confidence of the Iranian regime.

The Iranians also have miscalculated on the United States. When the Islamic Revolution occurred, the governing assumption — not only in Iran but also in many parts of the world, including the United States — was that the United States was a declining power. It had, after all, been defeated in Vietnam and was experiencing declining U.S. military power and severe economic problems. But the Iranians massively miscalculated with regard to the U.S. position: In the end, the United States surged and it was the Soviets who collapsed.

The Iranians do not have a sterling record in managing great powers, and especially in predicting the behavior of the United States. In large and small ways, they have miscalculated on what the United States would do and how it would do it. Therefore, like the Americans, the Iranians are deeply divided. There are those who regard the United States as a bumbling fool, all set to fail in Iraq. There are others who remember equally confident forecasts about other American disasters, and who see the United States as ruthless, cunning and utterly dangerous.

These sentiments, then, divide into two policy factions. On the one side, there are those who see Bush’s surge strategy as an empty bluff. They point out that there is no surge, only a gradual buildup of troops, and that the number of troops being added is insignificant. They point to political divisions in Washington and argue that the time is ripe for Iran to go for it all. They want to force a civil war in Iraq, to at least dominate the southern region and take advantage of American weakness to project power in the Persian Gulf.

The other side wonders whether the Americans are as weak as they appear, and also argues that exploiting a success in Iraq would be more dangerous and difficult than it appears. The United States has substantial forces in Iraq, and the response to Shiite uprisings along the western shore of the Persian Gulf would be difficult to predict. The response to any probe into Saudi Arabia certainly would be violent.

We are not referring here to ideological factions, nor to radicals and moderates. Rather, these are two competing visions of the United States. One side wants to exploit American weakness; the other side argues that experience shows that American weakness can reverse itself unexpectedly and trap Iran in a difficult and painful position. It is not a debate about ends or internal dissatisfaction with the regime. Rather, it is a contest between audacity and caution.

The Historical View

Over time — and this is not apparent from Iranian rhetoric — caution has tended to prevail. Except during the 1980s, when they supported an aggressive Hezbollah, the Iranians have been quite measured in their international actions. Following the war with Iraq, they avoided overt moves — and they even were circumspect after the fall of the Soviet Union, when opportunities presented themselves to Iran’s north. After 9/11, the Iranians were careful not to provoke the United States: They offered landing rights for damaged U.S. aircraft and helped recruit Shiite tribes for the American effort against the Taliban. The rhetoric alternated between intense and vitriolic; the actions were more cautious. Even with the Iranian nuclear project, the rhetoric has been far more intense than the level of development seems to warrant.

Rhetoric influences perceptions, and perceptions can drive responses. Therefore, the rhetoric should not be discounted as a driving factor in the geopolitical system. But the real debate in Iran is over what to do about Iraq. No one in Iran wants a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, and blocking the emergence of such a government has a general consensus. But how far to go in trying to divide Iraq, creating a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and projecting power in the region is a matter of intense debate. In fact, cautious behavior combined with extreme rhetoric still appears to be the default position in Tehran, with more adventurous arguments struggling to gain acceptance.

The United States, for its part, is divided between the desire to try one more turn at the table to win it all and the fear that it is becoming hopelessly trapped. Iran is divided between a belief that the time to strike is now and a fear that counting the United States out is always premature. This is an engine that can, in due course, drive negotiations. Iran might be “evil” and the United States might be “Satan,” but at the end of the day, international affairs involving major powers are governed not by rhetoric but by national interest. The common ground between the United States and Iran is that neither is certain it can achieve its real strategic interests. The Americans doubt they can create a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad, and Iran is not certain the United States is as weak as it appears to be.

Fear and uncertainty are the foundations of international agreement, while hope and confidence fuel war. In the end, a fractured Iraq — an entity incapable of harming Iran, but still providing an effective buffer between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula — is emerging as the most viable available option.

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com .

? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.
Posted: 01/20/2007 @ 15:54

[Author]

Replies