“From a geo-poltical POV the ONLY reason to invade Iraq was to establish a logistics base for invading Iran.”

No, you’re being unfair. The status quo ante was intolerable, whatever he may or may not have been up to, no one can credibly say that Sadaam was not a threat to us and his neighbors.

And there IS all that oil…

“So the Bush effort is a complete and total failure. Not because of Iraq, but because he stopped there.”

Agreed that there’s still work to be done, but there IS such a thing as consolidating one’s gains.

IF, (and it’s a big one, admittedly), we can get the Iraqis aboard and in some semblance of functional order, we can harness that 3000 year old Arab-Persian antipathy to our own ends.

And in the meantime, we can always use the Kurds to foment mischief against the Mullahs, since historical Kurdistan encompassed parts of what is now Iranian territory.
By all accounts, the Peshmerga are very good at being pains in the ass.

“Attrition war, which works well when you are the biggest, baddest bird in the flock. Useless against an enemy that doesn’t have a center of gravity.”

Again, I disagree. An Army in Being is STILL an Army…and when it comprises a few US Army Armored and US Marine Corps Divisions, with all their goodies, is not to be sneezed at.

Take a page from General Grant and imagine being in the OTHER fellows sandals.

Yeah…he wishes that he had such problems.

“The closest thing radical Islam has to a center of gravity is Iran.”

For the moment, yes, although Riyadh would seem to be the favorite horse to place in that race.

“President Bush’s notion that Democracy can be vectored like a flu virus is completely in5an3. ”

Maybe not so much as you’d like to believe.

Despite wooly-headed academic notions to the contrary, Democracy was born in the No-Man’s Land between phalanxes of heavily-armed helots.

Isn’t that why we have elections…to determine who has mustered the bigger army?

If those No-man’s lands can be created in the middle east, wouldn’t that at least recreate the conditions that favored the adoption of democracy in our own culture?

It seems to have worked in Iraq…the people have apparently grown tired of the internecine warfare and opted for a more peaceful way.

“If Lee had refused battle at Gettysburg and created a path of destruction thru Pennsylvania and New York, like Sherman did thru Georgia, the South would have won.”

Not a poular pasttime hereabouts, observing that Lee was incapable of executing a succesful operational offensive.

“Western Civilization will fight over dirt, Arabic civilization is more concerned with keeping the herds intact. Relocating the herds to a different bit of dirt when threatened is normal for Arabs. One of the major reasons why they have such poor armies.”

Read your Keegan too, I see.

Germany never wanted to be really involved into a war, ie Afghanistan, Germaney wants a “neutral” statut ! so that she can pursue business anywhere , as her language compatriots, Austria, Zwitzerland.

It is different for France, that had played a part for centuries in Magreb and ME.

Now, her non participation to the 2nd war in Irak was more motivated by a great connaissance of the populations there and they reactions.

In particularity that you can’t win a war there if you don’t remove the people, this was the case in Algeria, it’s better to buy their mind, ie their imams, but have we the time for it ? and money for the herd !

Actually that is what Bin Laden is doing for our enemi camp !!!

typos_R_us:

very interesting analyse

The American way of war is to gather power and strike at the strongest part of your enemy (center of gravity), the theory being that if you beat their best, you can deal with the rest. Attrition war, which works well when you are the biggest, baddest bird in the flock. Useless against an enemy that doesn’t have a center of gravity. The closest thing radical Islam has to a center of gravity is Iran.
From a geo-poltical POV the ONLY reason to invade Iraq was to establish a logistics base for invading Iran. Iran doesn’t have any beach suitable for a seaborn invasion. The US Navy doesn’t have enough specialized transport ships to mount a seaborne invasion on the scale needed.
So the Bush effort is a complete and total failure. Not because of Iraq, but because he stopped there.

For an anology, I’m turning to the first modern war, the War of Secession (AKA Civil War) here in the states. Grant didn’t win the war, Sherman did. Grant made Sherman’s march possible by pinning Lee to Virginia, but without Sherman, they would still be fighting in front of Richmond.
If Sherman had stopped half way thru his march to the sea, they would still be fighting in front of Richmond. If Lee had refused battle at Gettysburg and created a path of destruction thru Pennsylvania and New York, like Sherman did thru Georgia, the South would have won.

Regime change in Iran won’t stop the Islamic fundamentalists. In the past (history) Jihads have always burned out. History, as it always does will repeat. The question is ‘How much damage will they do before they burn out? Removing the Mad Dog Mullahs from power will reduce the capabilities of the Jihadists to the point where the criminal justice system can deal with them.
We cannot win a “war on terror”. What we can do is reduce the effects of terrorism to the point where it’s not a big deal, with thousands dying. Millions if they go nuclear, which they will given the capability.

Actually, we missed a Golden Opportunity to knock Syria out of the box in ’06, when the IDF had pushed Hezbollah up against the Litani River…they had effectively flanked Syrian defenses on the Golan Heights.

Had we massed mechanized and armored forces and launched them out of Anbar Province…it’s about 200 miles to Damascus, and tank country all the way.

Israel through the front door, US through the back door, and Iran’s “Bitch” Assad is no more.

Side benefit: Lebanon gets to free itself from Syria AND Hezbollah.

—-

“Not just the Bremer decisions, but triumphant Neocon saber-rattling about how wonderful it would be for their Special Friend if America then took down it’s other two big enemies – Iran and Syria – right after we “finished” in Iraq. This created the Sunnis with nothing to lose and committed almost to a man to defending Sunni neighborhoods & killing Americans in the Insurgency with Syria and other nations sympathetic to their co-religionists allowing Iraqis to muster men and material on their soil….which the Neocons had said was the next target.”
—–
Ceadarford is inadvertenltly right when he claims that what happened on American soil prolonged the insurgency. But it was the message of weakness and lack of resolve sent by the other party that voted for the war(and then used it for partisan purposes when it proved difficult) and their propaganda arm aka the MSM which encouraged the insurgents to hang in their even as they lost every single battle to the courageous American forces.

32. cedarford: the 2009 provincial elections in Iraq seem to indicate that Iraqis are tired of Sharia and clerics in power. The Iranian protege Hakim was sent to political wilderness and Maliki’s party actually won on a program of non-religious nationalism.

In Pakistan, the hardliners never got more than 12% of the vote, and in the last elections, about 4%. True enough, some of their voters boycotted the elections.

I wonder how would a really free elections turn up in Iran.

Saddam Hussein removed from power and replaced with a democratic government.
Libya giving up it’s nuclear program.
Syria scared out of Lebanon.
A.Q Khan’s network exposed and dismantled.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the war bled thousands of terrorist wanna be’s out of the region and into Iraq, where they ran into the maw of the USMC.

I can’t wait for your speculations on the state of the region if Bush had done nothing at all.