Originally Posted by Truth '61

The "non civil war" continues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

At the risk of resembling HC or Xenakis, I'm going to self quote. Last year I wrote the following two posts:

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

1. If we stay the course Iraq is doomed to civil war and we'll look terrible.

2. If we put as many troops in there as General Shinseki told us we'd need to begin with, we'll need a draft and hundreds of billions more dollars to spend on our military.

3. If we pull out, we look very weak and invite all sorts of problems that we may come to regret very much.

Which of these extremely unpalatable options do we take? Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Condi, and the crew should resign for bringing us to such a terrible pass.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If we had enough troops there (a la Shinseki) we could force an obvious solution on them: A bicameral legislature.

One house could be proportional (making the Shia happy). The other, "upper" house could have each major region be represented at some ratio, like 6 Shia: 4 Sunni : 3 Kurd. That way if the Sunni Arabs could find common ground with the (mostly) Sunni Kurds, they could overrule the Shia in the Upper House. It would then have to compromise with the Shia dominated Lower House.

Furthermore, tax enforcement on oil revenues should be a Federal issue, that way the wealth is spread evenly around the nation, rather than the Shia and Kurds screwing the Sunnis.

Bingo, problem solved. Like I said, if we had enough power there . . .

And Rumsfeld at one point thought we could get away with a force of 30,000.
http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle2782.html

If Dubya were serious about his 4T rhetoric we wouldn't be in this mess. But because he pursued 4T goals with 3T behavior and attitudes, we're f*cked. I wrote 2+ years ago (but can't prove it because the search function isn't going back that far) that this 3T approach was terribly risky. But HC told me that 400,000 soldiers weren't necessary. I said put in that many or stop kidding yourself about our chances. So frustrating.

I am so glad we've made the world so safe and secure since 9/11. I'm glad we have cultivated the good will we received after 9/11 from the world community. I'm glad we haven't had 5 million illegal aliens cross our southern border who could be used as a cover for Al Qaeda operatives entering the country. I'm glad we don't check as little as 3% of all incoming material at our ports utilizing the technology that is now available to check it all. And I'm especially glad that the restriction of constitutional liberties and the assumption of unconstitutional powers is considered a last resort by this administration -- they're doing everything else first before taking such a desperate move.

The Trog, HC, and KIA are right! Dubya has made us so much safer and done such a good job since 9/11.

NY Times Baghdad Bureau Chief: Iraq War Likely To Fail

Originally Posted by Editor and Publisher

NEW YORK A day after returning to the U.S., after another long term as bureau chief in Baghdad, John Burns of The New York Times said on Bill Maher's Friday night HBO program that he now feels, for the first time, that the American effort in Iraq will likely "fail."

Asked if a civil war was developing there, Burns said, "It's always been a civil war," adding that it's just a matter of extent. He said the current U.S. leaders there--military and diplomatic--were doing there best but sectarian differences would "probably" doom the enterprise.

"Iraq civil war seen drawing in neighbors"

Originally Posted by Reuters

"DUBAI, March 15 (Reuters) - Three years after warning that invading Iraq would unleash hell in the Middle East, Baghdad's neighbours fear they could be dragged into a brewing civil war.

As Sunni-Shi'ite violence intensifies, governments in Turkey, Iran and nearby Arab countries are drawing up plans to prevent any sectarian or ethnic conflict spilling across borders and upsetting their internal political balance, analysts say.

They are also considering its likely impact on an already shifting regional balance of power, in which Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia fears the rising political clout of Shi'ite Muslim Iran.

"If war breaks out in Iraq, it will become a battleground involving everyone in the region," said Kuwaiti political analyst Jassem al-Saadoun. "Every one of Iraq's neighbours is guilty of meddling in its affairs for political gain.""

US Launches Largest Air Assault in Iraq Since Start of War

- - -

Nice sig line, Justino. I missed that one. Wonder if Billy-boy ever paid up? :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Nice sig line, Justino. I missed that one. Wonder if Billy-boy ever paid up? :lol: :lol:

Who did he make it with?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Nice sig line, Justino. I missed that one. Wonder if Billy-boy ever paid up? :lol: :lol:

Who did he make it with?

And who owned the shower and luffa?

The time for "branding" Iraq is over. It is a civil war by historical standards

http://one-salient-oversight.blogspo...-compared.html

all the current evidence from Iraq suggests that a civil war has been occurring since George Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" to the world. Therefore it is no longer appropriate to report or define the situation in Iraq as merely a "conflict" or an "insurgency". What is occurring in Iraq is a civil war. Let's stop playing around with words and call it as it is.

Iraq leader says civil war has begun:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...094538,00.html

Insurgents? Who the hell are they?

Bushites speak of "the insurgents" as if they were actually coming into Iraq from outrside its boarders. But this is mostly just another lie. It would be equilvalent to calling Johnny Reb an "insurgent" during the Civil War. The sad truth is that these so-called "insurgents" are indeed Iraqis — mostly disaffected Sunis — and they are proof positive that Iraq is now embroiled in a civil war.

Mission accomplished!

Perhaps, Croakmore

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

US Launches Largest Air Assault in Iraq Since Start of War

But will there be movement on the Malabar Front?

Originally Posted by Mustang

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

US Launches Largest Air Assault in Iraq Since Start of War

But will there be movement on the Malabar Front?

:lol: :twisted:

ZING!

I wouldn't usually bother to post the daily news from the front, but today's stories seem to confirm that parts of the elected Iraqi government is at least protecting if not actually backing death squads, and is going to resist American attempts to reduce Shiite on Sunni terrorism. If this pattern develops, the Americans might have a choice between breaking with the elected government they worked so hard to create, or taking a partisan stance favoring the Shiite policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide while resisting the Sunni policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. This would echo the British partisan pro Protestant policy in Northern Ireland, and likely go a long way towards fulfilling Bush 43's policy of creating a Long War. Of course, trying to resist a democratically elected government's desire for ethnic cleansing and genocide is problematic anyway. No good choices.

16 Sadr Loyalists Killed in Assault

For discussion purposes only...

Originally Posted by Jonathan Finer & John Anderson for the WaPo

No U.S. or Iraqi service members were killed in the clash with Sadr's supporters, which occurred in the predominantly Sunni Arab neighborhood of Adhamiyah, in northern Baghdad, according to a U.S. military statement. One Iraqi soldier was wounded, and 15 people were detained. An unidentified hostage was found at the site, the statement said, along with materials used to fashion homemade bombs.

Aides to Sadr, who is backed by one of the country's largest and most feared militias, said those killed were innocents praying in the al-Moustafa mosque in the Shaab neighborhood, well north of Adhamiyah, when the assault began at 6 p.m.

The U.S. military said in a statement that "no mosques were entered or damaged during this operation." The military also said U.S. forces came under fire as the raid began and then returned fire. It was impossible to verify where the raid took place because of the nightly government-imposed curfew that began at 8 p.m., hours before news of the incident broke.

This great little piece piggybacks on some of Robert Kaplan's insights about America in the post-national world: the inability of central governments to meet the threat of terrorism and trans-national criminal gangs, cultural fragmentation, devolution and the rise of city-states, private security replacing police state bureaucracies, the privatization of services, the emergence of an open source politics and economy etc.

Originally Posted by John Robb

"We have entered the age of the faceless, agile enemy. From London to Madrid and Nigeria to Russia, stateless terrorist groups have emerged to score blow after blow against us. Driven by cultural fragmentation, schooled in the most sophisticated technologies, and fueled by transnational crime, these groups are forcing corporations and individuals to develop new ways of defending themselves. The end result of this struggle will be a new, more resilient approach to national security, one built not around the state but around private citizens and companies. That new system will change how we live and work--for the better, in many ways--but the road getting there may seem long at times...

...Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks--evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as Warren Buffett's NetJets--will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security--as they do now with education--and shore up delivery of critical services. These "armored suburbs" will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems. As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America's cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge...

...Some towns and cities will go even further. In an effort to bar the door against expanding criminal networks, certain communities will move to regulate, tax, and control everything from illegal immigration to illicit drugs, despite federal pressure to do otherwise. A newly vigilant and networked public will push for much greater levels of transparency in government and corporate operations, using the Internet to expose, publish, and patch potential security flaws. Over time, this new transparency, and the wider participation it entails, will lead to radical improvements in government and corporate efficiency.

Its an antidote to the neo-nationalist thinking, as well as Wilsonian idealism in circulation.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I wouldn't usually bother to post the daily news from the front, but today's stories seem to confirm that parts of the elected Iraqi government is at least protecting if not actually backing death squads, and is going to resist American attempts to reduce Shiite on Sunni terrorism. If this pattern develops, the Americans might have a choice between breaking with the elected government they worked so hard to create, or taking a partisan stance favoring the Shiite policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide while resisting the Sunni policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. This would echo the British partisan pro Protestant policy in Northern Ireland, and likely go a long way towards fulfilling Bush 43's policy of creating a Long War. Of course, trying to resist a democratically elected government's desire for ethnic cleansing and genocide is problematic anyway. No good choices.

Not quite, Bob. This was why we pushed so hard for a unity government: so that we could support "the majority of government ministers" against "bad apples". The plain fact is that several elements of the government forces have been infiltrated by Sadr and the Iranians, who are looking to cause trouble. Their goal is, of course, a theocratic Shi'ite Iraq that takes orders from Qom and Tehran, in that order. To do this, they must defeat:

(a) the Sunnis who have no desire to be oppressed, thank you very much;
(b) al-Sistani and his "quietist" approach to Islamic democracy, where the imams advise but do not rule;
(c) the American occupation forces,
and possibly (d) the Kurds, although that's liable to blow up into a full-scale Kurdish War of Independence if they try.

It has gotten rather difficult to tell much of anything in Iraq anymore, but it's sounding like al-Qaeda has become far less of a player in Iraq anymore. al-Zarqawi has resorted to showing his face (and possibly clues to his location) just to assert his presence: he wouldn't do that if he were still succeeding at being the Dark Menace of Iraq, never seen but always felt. al-Qaeda are now basically shoot-on-sight throughout Iraq, regardless of location.

Much of the chaos is now being caused by Sadr, i.e., Iran, and by Sunnis fighting Sadr's forces. A key question I am unable to determine from reports is whether the Sunnis are successful in distinguishing offensive Sadr forces from defense-only loyal government forces. For Sadr to be defeated, it is critical that loyal government forces NOT engage in retaliation and that goats be separated from sheep. Sadr's centers of power are the Interior Ministry and the Facilities Protection Force, which has bloated out of all proportion into a kind of shadow army -- half again as large as the real army, and armed by aggressive Shi'ite groups, i.e., Iran.

Since there are no ethnic or cultural distinctions to tell a Sadrite from a regular Shi'ite, this is a tougher job than smoking Sunnis out in a Shi'ite town (moderate difficulty) or al-Qaeda foreigners from a Sunni town (easy). It's more similar to Saddam's tactics: make everyone suspect, and you can prevent civil society from forming. Attacks, no matter the instigators, are now completely and openly designed to prevent civil society from forming. Targets are chosen not out of military or economic value, but purely to make Iraqi life as miserable as possible. Sadrite attacks are primarily aimed at Sunnis, in order to divide Iraq on sectarian grounds; Sunni and remaining al-Qaeda attacks are aimed at government installations, in order to try and stop the government from acting effectively.

So we have

(a) the Kurds trying to develop themselves and prepare for their eventual extrication from Iraq (they are staying only because it prevents an invasion of Kurdistan at the moment);
(b) disaffected Sunnis still making a futile effort to stop a multicultural Iraq;
(c) non-disaffected Sunnis trying to defend themselves from Sadr;
(d) Sadr/Iran trying to take over the government, expel Sistani and his allies from power, and crush the Sunnis;
(e) everyone trying to get the Americans to leave them alone and crush their allies.

So what is our next step? Well, we stated that we would start standing down at an Iraqi troop level of 270k. They're at 242k. So soon we start pulling forces out, making sure that they are (a) loyal to the actual government and (b) able to handle whatever comes their way. We remain only to give air support. (Americans will tolerate nearly an infinite amount of air and sea battles; it's ground battles that get our dander up.) We support only loyal government forces as much as possible; Sadr and his goons get nothing from us. We can't actually shoot Sadr's peeps as they are "officially" government forces, and we don't want Iraqi government troops firing at Iraqi government troops if we can avoid it: that escalates the civil war. So we try to isolate them politically, cut off their funding, and let everyone discover for themselves that Sadr is actually working for a foreign power. Iraqis do NOT want to be ruled by Iran, and the more people (especially Shi'ites) realize this, the more they will oppose Sadr.

I suspect it will actually come down to a shooting war with Sadr, but hopefully this will happen (a) in concert with other Iranian actions, thus making it clear what a dupe Sadr is, (b) once there are few American forces on the ground, and (c) once everyone in Iraq hates Sadr's guts just as badly as they hate Zarqawi's now. Once Sadr's people are gone, there should be far fewer sectarian battles, and Iraq can settle into an Austerity period and rebuild (at least until the Kurds declare independence).

Originally Posted by Linus

This great little piece piggybacks on some of Robert Kaplan's insights about America in the post-national world: the inability of central governments to meet the threat of terrorism and trans-national criminal gangs, cultural fragmentation, devolution and the rise of city-states, private security replacing police state bureaucracies, the privatization of services, the emergence of an open source politics and economy etc.

Originally Posted by John Robb

"We have entered the age of the faceless, agile enemy. From London to Madrid and Nigeria to Russia, stateless terrorist groups have emerged to score blow after blow against us. Driven by cultural fragmentation, schooled in the most sophisticated technologies, and fueled by transnational crime, these groups are forcing corporations and individuals to develop new ways of defending themselves. The end result of this struggle will be a new, more resilient approach to national security, one built not around the state but around private citizens and companies. That new system will change how we live and work--for the better, in many ways--but the road getting there may seem long at times...

...Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks--evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as Warren Buffett's NetJets--will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security--as they do now with education--and shore up delivery of critical services. These "armored suburbs" will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems. As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America's cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge...

...Some towns and cities will go even further. In an effort to bar the door against expanding criminal networks, certain communities will move to regulate, tax, and control everything from illegal immigration to illicit drugs, despite federal pressure to do otherwise. A newly vigilant and networked public will push for much greater levels of transparency in government and corporate operations, using the Internet to expose, publish, and patch potential security flaws. Over time, this new transparency, and the wider participation it entails, will lead to radical improvements in government and corporate efficiency.

Its an antidote to the neo-nationalist thinking, as well as Wilsonian idealism in circulation.

I've been following JR's work for some time and agree with much of what he has to say. I believe that 9/11 was not the last of 4th Gen. Warfare on our homeland. And, I agree with his notion that future attacks will not take that spectacular form, but rather more along the lines of JR descriptions of “open source” continuous, small-scale attacks against critical infrastructure nodes and psychological targets that individually would be considered “trivial” (Mike Alexander’s word) at the national or international levels, but in aggregate and with due time, could implode our socioeconomic structures and basic world belief systems. The goal would be to discredit, in our own eyes, our government and even our way of life, leading us to isolationism, or even “hollowing-out” our status as a nation-state.

I like JR’s systems perspective that these actions and reactions are driven by rapidly accelerating globalization that, by its very nature, induces instabilities (e.g., super terrorist, trans-national mafias). He uses the analogy of high-performance fighter jets that due to their optimal performance design are inherently unstable. But, unlike the jet, we have not fully developed the instaneous feedback and control systems that can rapidly detect, analyze and control pertubations. JR sees the communities and corporations taking on their security needs as a step in evolving such rapid response mechanisms.

In recent discussions with JR, I have explored more the forces of globalization that are creating these “perturbations.” While most have a sense of globalization’s dynamic of “connecting the world,” there is also the less understood dynamic of globalization of balkanization. You can see this in our own communities where, as a simple example, you may little know, or communicate with, your immediate neighbors while at the same time being highly connected with extensive interactions with others at considerable distances by way of the internet. Another US example would be the creation of gated communities (I suggest reading some of Robert Kaplan’s works).

More complex balkanization dynamics of globalization are the reactions of other cultures and belief systems to global intrusions -- such reactions can be: strong identification with ‘like’ versus ‘unlike;’ attempts at cultural isolation or a “circling of the wagons;” and perhaps violent countering (e.g. terrorism) against globalization intrusions.

The balkanization dynamic has certainly shown itself in the fall of Warsaw, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia and in a less spectacular sense in other areas (e.g. Indonesia). I think further spectacular balkanization of Russia and eventually of China are very likely and will be a growing impediment to the EU particular with continued migration trends . I think the nation-state strictures of the USA are very strong and will hold against the tide, but it will be tested. And, very important, some of that testing will be derived from the blowback from our own instigated balkanization efforts in the ME.

Prior to Gulf War, Iraq was a regional power; today Iraq, as a nation-state, is obviously in doubt. Even more doubtful is the likely return of Iraq to a regional power. Iran is gaining as a regional power; this is against the globalization dynamic of balkanization and likely to fail from just internal pressures. And, unless Iran clearly changes its current stance to what would be considered a ‘good’ regional power, the US will apply considerable weight to the balkanization of that country. I suggest reading JR’s latest blog on how we would fight a war with Iran to achieve this strategic objective. I have no doubt that we would achieve that objective, but the blowback and its balkanizing impact on us would be immense; I hope we can take it. Its coming.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I wouldn't usually bother to post the daily news from the front, but today's stories seem to confirm that parts of the elected Iraqi government is at least protecting if not actually backing death squads, and is going to resist American attempts to reduce Shiite on Sunni terrorism. If this pattern develops, the Americans might have a choice between breaking with the elected government they worked so hard to create, or taking a partisan stance favoring the Shiite policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide while resisting the Sunni policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. This would echo the British partisan pro Protestant policy in Northern Ireland, and likely go a long way towards fulfilling Bush 43's policy of creating a Long War. Of course, trying to resist a democratically elected government's desire for ethnic cleansing and genocide is problematic anyway. No good choices.

Not quite, Bob. This was why we pushed so hard for a unity government: so that we could support "the majority of government ministers" against "bad apples". The plain fact is that several elements of the government forces have been infiltrated by Sadr and the Iranians, who are looking to cause trouble. Their goal is, of course, a theocratic Shi'ite Iraq that takes orders from Qom and Tehran, in that order. To do this, they must defeat:

(a) the Sunnis who have no desire to be oppressed, thank you very much;
(b) al-Sistani and his "quietist" approach to Islamic democracy, where the imams advise but do not rule;
(c) the American occupation forces,
and possibly (d) the Kurds, although that's liable to blow up into a full-scale Kurdish War of Independence if they try.

It has gotten rather difficult to tell much of anything in Iraq anymore, but it's sounding like al-Qaeda has become far less of a player in Iraq anymore. al-Zarqawi has resorted to showing his face (and possibly clues to his location) just to assert his presence: he wouldn't do that if he were still succeeding at being the Dark Menace of Iraq, never seen but always felt. al-Qaeda are now basically shoot-on-sight throughout Iraq, regardless of location.

Much of the chaos is now being caused by Sadr, i.e., Iran, and by Sunnis fighting Sadr's forces. A key question I am unable to determine from reports is whether the Sunnis are successful in distinguishing offensive Sadr forces from defense-only loyal government forces. For Sadr to be defeated, it is critical that loyal government forces NOT engage in retaliation and that goats be separated from sheep. Sadr's centers of power are the Interior Ministry and the Facilities Protection Force, which has bloated out of all proportion into a kind of shadow army -- half again as large as the real army, and armed by aggressive Shi'ite groups, i.e., Iran.

Since there are no ethnic or cultural distinctions to tell a Sadrite from a regular Shi'ite, this is a tougher job than smoking Sunnis out in a Shi'ite town (moderate difficulty) or al-Qaeda foreigners from a Sunni town (easy). It's more similar to Saddam's tactics: make everyone suspect, and you can prevent civil society from forming. Attacks, no matter the instigators, are now completely and openly designed to prevent civil society from forming. Targets are chosen not out of military or economic value, but purely to make Iraqi life as miserable as possible. Sadrite attacks are primarily aimed at Sunnis, in order to divide Iraq on sectarian grounds; Sunni and remaining al-Qaeda attacks are aimed at government installations, in order to try and stop the government from acting effectively.

So we have

(a) the Kurds trying to develop themselves and prepare for their eventual extrication from Iraq (they are staying only because it prevents an invasion of Kurdistan at the moment);
(b) disaffected Sunnis still making a futile effort to stop a multicultural Iraq;
(c) non-disaffected Sunnis trying to defend themselves from Sadr;
(d) Sadr/Iran trying to take over the government, expel Sistani and his allies from power, and crush the Sunnis;
(e) everyone trying to get the Americans to leave them alone and crush their allies.

So what is our next step? Well, we stated that we would start standing down at an Iraqi troop level of 270k. They're at 242k. So soon we start pulling forces out, making sure that they are (a) loyal to the actual government and (b) able to handle whatever comes their way. We remain only to give air support. (Americans will tolerate nearly an infinite amount of air and sea battles; it's ground battles that get our dander up.) We support only loyal government forces as much as possible; Sadr and his goons get nothing from us. We can't actually shoot Sadr's peeps as they are "officially" government forces, and we don't want Iraqi government troops firing at Iraqi government troops if we can avoid it: that escalates the civil war. So we try to isolate them politically, cut off their funding, and let everyone discover for themselves that Sadr is actually working for a foreign power. Iraqis do NOT want to be ruled by Iran, and the more people (especially Shi'ites) realize this, the more they will oppose Sadr.

I suspect it will actually come down to a shooting war with Sadr, but hopefully this will happen (a) in concert with other Iranian actions, thus making it clear what a dupe Sadr is, (b) once there are few American forces on the ground, and (c) once everyone in Iraq hates Sadr's guts just as badly as they hate Zarqawi's now. Once Sadr's people are gone, there should be far fewer sectarian battles, and Iraq can settle into an Austerity period and rebuild (at least until the Kurds declare independence).

There is much to agree with here. However, I would consider the possibility that the chess game is multi-dimensional. Is the time right for the US to attempt to fully counter the balkanization of Iraq? Perhaps as a strong unified nation-state, Iraq would be an important impediment to Iran's regional goals. If that tactical objective (i.e., a unified Iraq) is not likely to be in reach for some time, what Iraq status would be most beneficial to US strategic goal of destabilizing and balkanizing Iran, effectively removing it as a regional threat? Sure we get the terrorist and other blowback, but would the trade-off be any less attractive than the one we faced when deciding to further the balkanization of the Soviet Union?

Wanna keep Iran busy?

Support an independent Kurdistan.

(Yeah, I know, Turkey blah blah blah...)

For discussion purposes only.

War clouds

Originally Posted by Rosa Brooks

LET ME TELL YOU about the next war.

It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran.

When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.

Despite the high stakes, the Bush administration seems barely to have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs are there, for those inclined to read them.

As international pressure over their nuclear program mounts, the Iranians have become increasingly bellicose toward the U.S. and Israel. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel was a "fake regime" that "cannot logically continue to live." On Wednesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned that "if the U.S. ventured into any aggression on Iran, Iran will retaliate by damaging the U.S. interests worldwide."

Israel has upped the rhetorical heat as well. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated Israel's determination to "make sure no one has the capability or the power to commit destruction against us."

This alone should make any observer jittery. In June 1981, Israel unilaterally launched an airstrike against a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-concealed, making a preemptive Israeli strike far more difficult this time around. But there's no reason to doubt Israel's willingness to try.

Of course, there's no firm evidence that Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities. And even a successful military strike against Iran would be a risky move for Israel, potentially igniting regionwide instability. Absent external meddling, Israel has a substantial incentive to wait to see if a diplomatic solution can be found.

But Russian brinksmanship is about to remove Israel's incentive to pursue a peaceful diplomatic path.

Russian leaders continue to mouth the usual diplomatic platitudes about democracy and global cooperation, but Russia is actually playing a complex double game. On Tuesday, Russia launched a spy satellite for Israel, which the Israelis can use to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. On the same day, Russian leaders confirmed their opposition to any U.N. Security Council effort to impose sanctions against Iran, and their intention to go through with the lucrative sale of 29 Tor M1 air defense missile systems to Iran.

"There are no circumstances which would get in the way of us carrying out our commitments in the field of military cooperation with Iran," declared Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of Russia's National Security Council.

The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems are deployed, Iran's air defenses will become far more sophisticated, and Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor missile deployment is set to be completed.

At best, a conflict between Israel and Iran (with resulting civilian casualties) would further inflame anti-Israel sentiment in the Islamic world, with a consequent increase in terrorism, both against Israel and against the U.S., Israel's main foreign backer. At worst — if the U.S. gets drawn into the conflict directly — the entire Middle East could implode, terrorist attacks worldwide would increase, the already overstretched U.S. military would be badly damaged and U.S. global influence would wane — perhaps forever.

So what is Russia up to? Andrei Piontkovsky, a Russian political analyst, suggests that Russia's oil and gas oligarchs wouldn't shed any tears over a war in the Middle East, especially if it's a war that ensnares the U.S. and keeps oil prices high.

Even so, it may not be too late to avert a new war in the Middle East. A quiet but firm U.S. threat to boycott the G-8 summit in July in St. Petersburg might inspire Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to freeze the missile transfer. And a promise to facilitate Russian entry into the World Trade Organization might even get Russia's oil and gas oligarchs on board. Freezing the missile sale would buy crucial time to find a diplomatic solution to the stalemate over Iran's nuclear program.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to be asleep at the wheel, too distracted by Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices and plummeting approval ratings to devote any attention to Russia's potentially catastrophic mischief.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking

Originally Posted by Linus

For discussion purposes only.

War clouds

Originally Posted by Rosa Brooks

LET ME TELL YOU about the next war.

It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran.

When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.

Despite the high stakes, the Bush administration seems barely to have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs are there, for those inclined to read them.

A few weeks ago, we had a string of leaks saying Bush was planning a preemptive strike on Iran, perhaps nuclear. Most of the stories resulting seemed to be spun as liberal leaks, attempts by whistle blowers to warn of a new neocon madness. They might also have been trial balloon leaks, with the administration trying to gauge how The People would react to the idea of another war. From what I've heard, not many of The People liked the idea.

The leaks have stopped. This doesn't necessarily mean the administration isn't still making plans, or working diplomatic channels. All we can see is the overt public posturing, which is continuing.

We also shouldn't forget that Saddam was negotiating with French and Russian oil companies to end the embargo and rebuild Iraq's oil fields. Neither Russia nor Iran would have forgotten the preemptive unilateral invasion of Iraq, and awarding of rebuilding contracts to American companies who make lots of contributions to the Republicans.

I have often noted that we should look on Iraq as a precursor. I'm more concerned with lessons learned than placing blame. We should note that the Russia and Iran would also be learning lessons. Gulf War III would be an extension of what came before.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Linus

For discussion purposes only.

War clouds

Originally Posted by Rosa Brooks

LET ME TELL YOU about the next war.

It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran.

When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.

Despite the high stakes, the Bush administration seems barely to have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs are there, for those inclined to read them.

A few weeks ago, we had a string of leaks saying Bush was planning a preemptive strike on Iran, perhaps nuclear. Most of the stories resulting seemed to be spun as liberal leaks, attempts by whistle blowers to warn of a new neocon madness. They might also have been trial balloon leaks, with the administration trying to gauge how The People would react to the idea of another war. From what I've heard, not many of The People liked the idea.

The leaks have stopped. This doesn't necessarily mean the administration isn't still making plans, or working diplomatic channels. All we can see is the overt public posturing, which is continuing.

We also shouldn't forget that Saddam was negotiating with French and Russian oil companies to end the embargo and rebuild Iraq's oil fields. Neither Russia nor Iran would have forgotten the preemptive unilateral invasion of Iraq, and awarding of rebuilding contracts to American companies who make lots of contributions to the Republicans.

I have often noted that we should look on Iraq as a precursor. I'm more concerned with lessons learned than placing blame. We should note that the Russia and Iran would also be learning lessons. Gulf War III would be an extension of what came before.

One key factor that makes war inevitable is a sense of a viable outcome. While certainly not a proponent for war, John Robb describes what a number of DOD and Intell analysts are concluding. Excerpts below are from http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

Most of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program isn’t contained in the facilities but in the knowledge of its engineers. This means that any destruction of facilities would only result in a short-term delay in development and a redoubled commitment by Iran to accomplish the task.
These problems indicate that the only way to truly realize a reversal in the Iranian program is regime change. Therefore the objective would be to remove the clerical regime from power -- it’s likely that merely a political reshuffle would be insufficient to ensure any meaningful reduction in the threat. Additionally, this is a real test of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Iran has clearly supported international terrorism and will soon be in a position to supply these groups with nuclear weapons.

To accomplish this regime change under the given restraints, the US will utilize a rapidly evolving method of air warfare called the “effects-based operation” (EBO). The EBO is a process that incapacitates a nation-state’s systems (typically critical infrastructure) and organizations to achieve desired strategic outcomes. In the past this has meant a combination of precision-guided munitions, special operations, and stealth technology to precisely target critical nodes in national infrastructures and systems. The destruction of these nodes, due to the power of network dependencies, will typically cause sustained system collapse (in much the same way a downed power line can cause a regional blackout, but in this case intentionally).

In regards to its suitability as a target for an EBO, Iran is perfect -- it is both urbanized and its population relies on national networks vulnerable to disruption and manipulation. This means U.S. forces (no other nation can do this) would have the ability to use precise applications of force to break down Iran’s critical systems, eliminating critical nodes within its electricity, communications, transportation, military, and industrial systems. A nation-state that is subjected to this type of attack ceases all governmental and economic function. In sum, Iran would be “turned off” until the regime changes

The US administration’s hopes for a regime change in Iran will draw from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will be torn apart from within. To accomplish this, the US will conduct the EBO under the pretense of forcing Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program -- a condition that the Iranian regime will find impossible to accept. Simultaneous with the air campaign’s suppression of Iran’s minority Persian government, the US will arm and actively support ethnic guerrillas (Kurds, Balochs, Azeris, etc.) to turn sections of the country into autonomous zones. Without the ability to utilize any of the capabilities of conventional warfare (from airpower to armor to massed formations), let alone command forces in the field or marshal a nation for war, the Iranian government would eventually collapse and its successor will accede to the growing set of US demands. The final resolution of this conflict would include recognition of regional autonomous groups and shared oil revenues in addition to the primary aim: cessation of nuclear activity. In short, if this succeeds, Iran will cease to be a regional power or even what could be termed a cohesive, viable state.

I have no doubt that the US military could accomplish this strategic objective of balkanizing Iran by the means described by Robb. However, as Robb also states, the consequences of doing so are immense, certainly of 4T order.

Despite the seeming inevitability of this path, the outcomes ("effects") it would produce are far from inevitable. An attack of this type would be a global system shock that is rife with downside risks and uncertainties. Once the attack commences, the shock waves it produces would be far-reaching, unpredictable, and in most cases very bad. Even if the U.S. military is prepared to repel an Iranian counter-attack and armed revolts from Iraqi Shiite militia members, it’s impossible to prevent rocketing oil prices, global terrorist attacks, and severe diplomatic fall-out. Further, Iran’s government may prove to be more resourceful than anticipated and outlast the attack, only to resume production of nuclear materials with the intent of revenge. Worse yet, the US might inadvertently collapse the US-led post cold war environment as countries, distrustful of US intentions, scramble to safety amid rapidly gyrating economic and social instability

.

The dilemma, however, is that the scenario of not pursuing Iran's balkanization may hold a graver 4T for the US

Despite these well-founded fears, the lack of other viable options coupled with the pertinacious intent of the U.S. administration to stop Iran from building the bomb (heedless of the costs), will likely drive the Pentagon towards this method of attack. To the Bush administration, all alternatives are preferable to a nuclear-armed Iranian clerical regime with de facto control over Palestine’s Hamas, Shiite militias in Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and numerous other global terror groups. For those contemplating this attack, the Iranian regime, with Ahmadinejad as its public face, has become everything that Saddam promised to be and more.

Again, the most important election in 2006 is likely in Iran not in the US.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...FB3575ED8.html

Originally Posted by salsabob

One key factor that makes war inevitable is a sense of a viable outcome. While certainly not a proponent for war, John Robb describes what a number of DOD and Intell analysts are concluding. Excerpts below are from http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

Most of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program isn’t contained in the facilities but in the knowledge of its engineers. This means that any destruction of facilities would only result in a short-term delay in development and a redoubled commitment by Iran to accomplish the task.
These problems indicate that the only way to truly realize a reversal in the Iranian program is regime change. Therefore the objective would be to remove the clerical regime from power -- it’s likely that merely a political reshuffle would be insufficient to ensure any meaningful reduction in the threat. Additionally, this is a real test of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Iran has clearly supported international terrorism and will soon be in a position to supply these groups with nuclear weapons.

I unfortunately agree with this assessment. Iran under the mullahs is never going to give up on enmity with America, or on nuclear weapons, or on regional hegemony. They're out to establish a Shi'ite Caliphate.

To accomplish this regime change under the given restraints, the US will utilize a rapidly evolving method of air warfare called the “effects-based operation” (EBO).

The Air Force thought this up, I can tell. However, with the Army and Marines tied up in Iraq, and the Navy needed to keep the Persian Gulf open, the only remaining option is precision strategic bombing (which this is, under another name).

The US administration’s hopes for a regime change in Iran will draw from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will be torn apart from within. To accomplish this, the US will conduct the EBO under the pretense of forcing Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program -- a condition that the Iranian regime will find impossible to accept.

No problem so far. As long as the targets are relatively well chosen, the Iranian people will understand that this is a war against their government (which they despise) and not their people.

Simultaneous with the air campaign’s suppression of Iran’s minority Persian government, the US will arm and actively support ethnic guerrillas (Kurds, Balochs, Azeris, etc.) to turn sections of the country into autonomous zones. Without the ability to utilize any of the capabilities of conventional warfare (from airpower to armor to massed formations), let alone command forces in the field or marshal a nation for war, the Iranian government would eventually collapse and its successor will accede to the growing set of US demands. The final resolution of this conflict would include recognition of regional autonomous groups and shared oil revenues in addition to the primary aim: cessation of nuclear activity. In short, if this succeeds, Iran will cease to be a regional power or even what could be termed a cohesive, viable state.

What. The. Hell. Is. This???

After all, balkanization of Iraq and Afghanistan have worked out so well, so why don't we try it in a third country?

The Persians, who are currently inclined to be our friends, will damn us for all eternity if we deliberately start an Iranian civil war and turn Iran into a third Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't take Iran out of the equation -- it just makes Iran yet another failed country... and one we don't have the resources to attempt nation-building in. Anything -- anything -- could come out of the disaster this would generate.

The goal here isn't to eliminate Iran! It's to flip them. Iran is just inches away from being a real showcase for Islamic democracy. They have all the institutions and know perfectly well how to vote -- they just need to get rid of these oppressive mullahs.

If we do this, America will be known as "the country that tears other countries apart". We'll never be able to get support to intervene anywhere ever again. The nations of the world will gang up on us anytime we even open our mouth -- for their own survival. We'll have negative credibility abroad. We'll be too dangerous to anyone to be let out of a cage. If we do this, we might as well cut the military budget in half and bring all the troops home.

Again, the most important election in 2006 is likely in Iran not in the US.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...FB3575ED8.html

Originally Posted by catfishncod

The US administration’s hopes for a regime change in Iran will draw from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran will be torn apart from within. To accomplish this, the US will conduct the EBO under the pretense of forcing Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program -- a condition that the Iranian regime will find impossible to accept.

No problem so far. As long as the targets are relatively well chosen, the Iranian people will understand that this is a war against their government (which they despise) and not their people.

I'm not sure how well this would be understood. Not a few people who didn't care for Bush 43 rallied around the flag after the September 11th attacks. I see the knee jerk rally round the flag reaction to attack as inherently human rather than uniquely American.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Simultaneous with the air campaign’s suppression of Iran’s minority Persian government, the US will arm and actively support ethnic guerrillas (Kurds, Balochs, Azeris, etc.) to turn sections of the country into autonomous zones. Without the ability to utilize any of the capabilities of conventional warfare (from airpower to armor to massed formations), let alone command forces in the field or marshal a nation for war, the Iranian government would eventually collapse and its successor will accede to the growing set of US demands. The final resolution of this conflict would include recognition of regional autonomous groups and shared oil revenues in addition to the primary aim: cessation of nuclear activity. In short, if this succeeds, Iran will cease to be a regional power or even what could be termed a cohesive, viable state.

What. The. Hell. Is. This???

After all, balkanization of Iraq and Afghanistan have worked out so well, so why don't we try it in a third country?

The Persians, who are currently inclined to be our friends, will damn us for all eternity if we deliberately start an Iranian civil war and turn Iran into a third Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't take Iran out of the equation -- it just makes Iran yet another failed country... and one we don't have the resources to attempt nation-building in. Anything -- anything -- could come out of the disaster this would generate.

The goal here isn't to eliminate Iran! It's to flip them. Iran is just inches away from being a real showcase for Islamic democracy. They have all the institutions and know perfectly well how to vote -- they just need to get rid of these oppressive mullahs.

If we do this, America will be known as "the country that tears other countries apart". We'll never be able to get support to intervene anywhere ever again. The nations of the world will gang up on us anytime we even open our mouth -- for their own survival. We'll have negative credibility abroad. We'll be too dangerous to anyone to be let out of a cage. If we do this, we might as well cut the military budget in half and bring all the troops home.

Yah. The question would be whether folks are interested in defeating Iran, or improving the situation in the Middle East. It is tempting to switch roles, to play on the insurgent side of the next conflict, rather than to be trying to play defense in a guerilla war. I suspect Iran and Syria are feeding money arms and men to the Iraq insurgency. Under the turnabout is fair play theory, it is tempting to place the shoe on the other foot, to confront Iran with a similar insurgency on their home ground.

But while it might be tempting at a military level, I would tend to agree it would be a very bad idea at the political level. My view of the international crisis is that the First World might encourage and help the Third World develop post autocratic governments and build economic viability. In the process, they have to discourage anarchy, discourage warlord government, which is the worst case form of autocratic rule. Encouraging warlord government seems like a really bad idea. Sure, we encouraged Bin Ladin's resistance to the Soviet Union, and helped Saddam when we was invading Iran shortly after the Shah was overthrown. Short term, helping warlords who dislike our enemies is tempting. Long term, I'm dubious. I'd rather not teach warlords that war is neat.

The Iranians are not interested in a caliphate but rather prepare for an Imamate to come.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on [i

Caliph[/i]]No attempts at rebuilding a power structure based on Islam were successful anywhere in the Muslim World until the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which was based on Shia principles and did not deal with the issue of a global caliphate.

Various Sunni Islamist movements have gained momentum in recent years, calling for a restoration of the caliphate. However many such movements have as yet been unable to agree on a roadmap or a coherent model of Islamic governance, and dialog on this issue amongst Muslim activists and intellectuals has yielded no clear consensus on what a modern Islamic state should look like.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on [i

Twelvers[/i]]Theology


Religious law, the Sharia

The Jafari derive their Sharia, or religious law, from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The difference between Sunni and Shia Sharia results from a Shia belief that Muhammad assigned Ali to be the first ruler and the leader after him (the Khalifa). Moreover, according to Shia, God dictated this designation. This difference resulted in the Shia:

Following hadith from Muhammad and the 12 Imams.

Not accepting the "examples", verdicts, and ahadith of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (who are considered by Sunnis to be the first three Caliphs).

Attributing the concept of the masum "infallibility" to the Twelve Imams or Fourteen Infallibles (including Muhammad and his daughter Fatima Zahra) and accepting the examples and verdicts of this special group.


The concept of Imams and the Mahdi

The Shi'a Imams, the first of which is Ali ibn Abi Talib, are viewed to be infallible. It is an important aspect of Shia theology that they are, however, not prophets (nabi) nor messengers (rasul) but instead carry out Muhammad's message. They are considered as superior as all prophets and messengers except the last one. Shia Muslims view all religions and groups that accept prophets or messengers after Muhammad to be heathen or heretical. They believe the last (who also is the twelfth and current) Imam, the Mahdi, is in hiding by the order of God and will reappear by God's command.