I’m probably just picking a nit here, but…

No army can fight with its supply lines under attack. The Iraqi army has to be able to cover our back before any confrontation with Iran can be contemplated.

Actually, armies fight all the time with their supply lines under attack. The real issue is whether or not the attacks upon supply lines are sufficiently effective to thwart our efforts.

There is no evidence I am aware of that the “pre-insurgency” era Iraqi forces, or the current “insurgency”, have any capability to do more than harass US supply lines. Clearly such harassment would involve attacks but is there some evidence the attacks, while surely bloody, would or could thwart the US military?

I doubt the US military needs or wants the Iraqi military “covering our backs”. It would be nice if they were capable of handling their internal strife without a great deal of assistance from the US should things reach the point of shooting with the Iranians, but I really doubt (and hope!) that the US military’s arrangement with the Iraqi military, in the case of open hostilities with Iran, would be along the lines of, “Hey, you guys handle the internal stuff like Najaf and Fallujah and such, and maybe this bit of border you are sufficiently trained and equipped to handle, and we’ll take care of ourselves and the Iranians.”

No real disagreement, although I think Israel can handle their own retaliatory strike, if needed.

Knuck

No army can fight with its supply lines under attack. The Iraqi army has to be able to cover our back before any confrontation with Iran can be contemplated.

This entire issue is akin to slapping a band-aid on a broken leg. The underlying problem is that more and more countries are reaching the technological point where WMD’s become within their reach. Even a successful strike against the Iranian nuclear facility would only kick this particular problem down the road a few years.

How long before the Iranian population revolts against the mullahs is anybody’s guess, but we must encourage that at every opportunity.

Simultaneously we have to keep the spark of democracy alive in Iraq and the lid on the “muckies” there or civil war will eat our lunch.

The next 12 to 18 months are going to be very interesting.

Hope you don’t mind if I comment inline…

There are four possible approaches to dealing with Iranian nuclear ambitions, besides simply giving in to them.

A pretty good list of the options, but I’m not sure all of them represent real options.

1) A conventional invasion, followed by the overthrow of the Iranian government. Basically, Iraq the sequel. I believe we do not have the militarry resources to accomplish this at present. A draft might be needed, but Bush does not have the poliical capital to institute a draft and then invade another country in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

I don’t think this is particularly a “Bush” issue. I don’t think any POTUS of my lifetime, or one I can imagine, has the political capital – without further major (and more devastating) attack against the US – for re-instating a draft.

Whether or not we can go to war with Iran with or without a draft is, I suppose, a seperate discussion but I certainly agree that war is one of the few options remaining to the US wrt Iran.

2) An air strike aimed at taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. This would actualy be a B2/cruise missile strike I imagine. The potential drawbacks here are considerable. In the worst case scenario, we do a good deal of collateral damage without successfully taking out the target. The Iranian people, at least some of them, would rally behind their country. Such an attack would be an act of war, and would invite a Iranian incursion into Iraq, where our forces are already tied down.

Trying to limit conflicts to airstrikes is always problematic. This is probably the best of bad military options available to us but, it seems to me, little more than a temporary “solution”.

From what little I know of Iran the Iranian people, even the ones who don’t support or are downright hostile to the Mullahocracy support the notion of Iran as a nuclear power.

As for an incursion into Iraq, by Iran, against the US forces there, that would be a devastating mistake on their part. We’re not the Iraqi military. We’d clean their clocks on the Iraqi terrain. Iran is a harder problem, militarily, than Iraq due to the terrain and because it is nowhere near as completely dysfunctional as Afghanistan. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack militarily UNLESS they were stupid enough to fight us in Iraq.

3) Intelligence services from a friendly power can attempt to either destablise the Iranian regime, or to sabatoge their nuclear facilities. This is the most appealing idea in many ways, but also the longest shot. I take it as given that the CIA does not have the ability to conduct the sabatoge, and while it once had some skill at overthrowing governments, it has spent the last few years trying to topple the Bush administration without success. I would not pin my hopes on these clowns.

Agreewith the addition that, at least for my way of looking at things, this is not diplomatically much different that armed conflict. Its an act of war to support an insurrection and/or sabotage. I don’t have a problem with that since I think Iran is at war with the US and has been, just sayin.

It can’t be the CIA. I’d consider leaving it to the DIA and SpecOps, but not the CIA. Those rogues need to be brought under control before we send them to do anything important again.

4) Diplomatic negotiations/ economic sanctions. These are almost never effective against the type of regime we are dealing with in Iran. They may delay the Iranian nuclear program, but will never stop it.

And even if sanctions were useful, how could the US – short of embargo – increase the level of sanction we impose on Iran. Aren’t we pretty maxed out on that or am I mistaken?

Since there are no good options the Bush administration is pursuing the fourth course for now, trying to buy time.

The handmaiden of buying time is taking time. Nothing we can do today will be any less doable in a few months or would have been any more effective a few months back. Get every bit of info time allows, plan and plan some more, practice and practice some more. If and when the time comes we’ll hopefully be as well prepared as possible to take actions 2) and 3) above (and I assume we have been setting the stage for 3) for a while.

The important milestone will be when the Iraqi army is capable of handling the insurgency on its own. This will free up the US forces to deal with any Iranian action in response to an air attack. From what I have been reading the Iraqi army is still at least six months away from that state of readiness, so I’d guess no air strike before then.

This is a valid point but the “insurgency” is not capable of militarily harming the US forces in Iraq even now. Turning to deal with the Iranian military would make life difficult for the Iraqis but they insurgency is not militarily dangerous to any strategic degree.

1) A conventional invasion, followed by the overthrow of the Iranian government. Basically, Iraq the sequel. I believe we do not have the militarry resources to accomplish this at present. A draft might be needed, but Bush does not have the poliical capital to institute a draft and then invade another country in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

2) An air strike aimed at taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. This would actualy be a B2/cruise missile strike I imagine. The potential drawbacks here are considerable. In the worst case scenario, we do a good deal of collateral damage without successfully taking out the target. The Iranian people, at least some of them, would rally behind their country. Such an attack would be an act of war, and would invite a Iranian incursion into Iraq, where our forces are already tied down.

3) Intelligence services from a friendly power can attempt to either destablise the Iranian regime, or to sabatoge their nuclear facilities. This is the most appealing idea in many ways, but also the longest shot. I take it as given that the CIA does not have the ability to conduct the sabatoge, and while it once had some skill at overthrowing governments, it has spent the last few years trying to topple the Bush administration without success. I would not pin my hopes on these clowns.

4) Diplomatic negotiations/ economic sanctions. These are almost never effective against the type of regime we are dealing with in Iran. They may delay the Iranian nuclear program, but will never stop it.

Since there are no good options the Bush administration is pursuing the fourth course for now, trying to buy time. The important milestone will be when the Iraqi army is capable of handling the insurgency on its own. This will free up the US forces to deal with any Iranian action in response to an air attack. From what I have been reading the Iraqi army is still at least six months away from that state of readiness, so I’d guess no air strike before then.

Thank you for prompting me to go ahead and read Richard Frank’s article. I was going to skip it. But it was fascinating. It will be even more fascinating to see how the revisionists and America Haters deal with this over time. Its probably time to start paying attention to recent books about he matter.

Interestingly, my Mom, a mere girl of almost sixteen at the time, pegged it pretty accurately as, “My brothers are alive today because Truman chose to drop the bomb.” She has never wavered from that position. Oddly enough, given Frank’s article, she may be incorrect – Olympic may never have happened and, had there been no Olympic and no bomb, Imperial Japan would either have survived or we would have been forced to keep dropping no end of conventional bombs on her until there was nothing left.

Also interesting, IMO, is that I have long been convinced that Truman’s decision saved countless lives – perhaps 50 or 100,000 Americans or more (unless the Navy was correct and that the US population would not have accepted such losses) but undoubtedly a few million Japanese lives. What I’d never taken into account (I don’t know that I’d ever seen an estimate of it but I certainly should have deduced it was happening if not the scale) was

Several American historians led by Robert Newman have insisted vigorously that any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan’s conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued.

Frank’s article places the toll from the Japanese portion of WWII at 17 million. Sounds like a reasonable number to me. Although he doesn’t say so it seems we could rather easily extrapolate that number up into the low to mid 20-millions without any wild-eyed exaggerations. That’s a lot of lives saved.

Well, that was way OT, but thanks again!

Barring a horrendous attack (that can be linked to Iran) we’ll keep our powder dry.

I agree with your assessment re: the lack of leadership from the Senate as well as NK.

This POTUS has chosen not to use the appeasement policy. Short of giving them “what they want” (kicking the can further down the road), the US has precious few diplomatic options with Iran or NK. What can the US do to squeeze any harder, short of armed conflict, on either NK or Iran?

While there may be “silence” from the administration re: Iran, what possible good could come from making this a big talking point issue? If the administration were “talking it up” would we hear anything but screaming about a war-mongering administration beating the drums of war?

He’s given the Euros the rope to hang their “diplomacy” (never ending “talks”) with. The eventual and almost surely inevitable failure of the Euro policies toward Iran change US options how?

Maybe Bush is silent because he is up to something.

I just read an interesting article in the Weekly Standard on why Truman dropped the bomb on Japan. For years revisionists have taken his silence and used to create a scenario in which fear of communism and a desire for empire compelled Truman. Now it seems he had information most people never knew about. It only took 60 years to find out about it.

So I would say that this ain’t over yet.

Not lost his nerve. He just doesn’t have a Senate that’s worth a bucket of warm spit. The leaders on both sides are spending more time in front of their mirrors trying to figure out how to look a little bit better on camera than they are attending to the job we hired them to do. The lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle is the worst I’ve ever seen. There is not one Senator (of the herd of Pres wannabes) of either party worthy of a vote for the Presidency based upon their current actions.

Wrt the Palestinians – W is more than keeping his side of the bargain in the sure and certain knowledge that the Palis will never miss a chance to miss a chance. Abbas is just a younger Arafat and one result of hanging all those dollars out is going to be a nice bloodbath to see who will get the opportunity to steal the most. The Israeli strategy of pulling the settlers out to give the Palis some clear space in which to conduct their civil war proceeds apace.

Wrt North Korea – this is China’s hot potatoe and we’ve done a good job of keeping it on their plate. We’ve also used this crisis to strengthen ties with Japan and India which will (I believe) have a very important payoff in the not too distant future. Have you noticed that His Roneryness has been acting a bit less megalomanical lately? China has tightened the reins and recent news has Russia stepping in to support China. Interesting to see old allies working together again, although not at all comforting.

Wrt Iran – See comments on Senate. Could Bush have any hope of getting a regime change policy affirmation from this clown club? The ’98 resolution on Iraq was the actual basis for what happened in ’03. I simply don’t believe that the current Senate shows has the capability for principled effort towards a similiar resolution.

Finally, the nature of politics is that at some point we will always be disappointed in the actions or lack of action on the part of those we hire. The balance of power makes that inevitable. I join you in wishing that W were using the bully pulpit more effectively and I question the advisability of him remaining silent concerning the absolute certain need for regime change in Iran. The silence does him no credit.