One possible message the Iraq invasion sent to the remaining legs of the Axis of Evil? Get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. Wars always have unintended consequences. Instead of disarming, Iran and North Korea seem to have accelerated their nuclear programs in the wake of the Iraq war.

Is there a causal relationship between Iraq's fate and Iran and North Korea's race for nukes? I don't know. I do know that if Iran and North Korea suddenly dropped their nuclear weapons program, Bush's lackeys would have claimed a causal link with Iraq. After all, they made this claim with Libya, though the nation was already in the process of ditching its WMD programs. Did Iraq nudge Libya along? Maybe, but if the U.S.'s multiple bombing raids of Libya didn't compel Gaddhafi to change his tune, it's doubtful that bombing a third party did an afwul lot to do this.

The men ruling Iran and North Korea heard their nations' names next to Iraq in President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and saw what happened to Iraq. Rather than be the next Iraq, they have decided not to be the next Iraq. Though seeking nuclear weapons might be cause for a foreign invasion, actually having them serves as a most effective deterent. Just ask Pakistan.

North Korea's claim of testing a nuclear bomb, which seismographic evidence corroborates (but does not confirm), is a major failure in U.S. foreign policy. A madman now has a nuclear weapon. The previous U.S. president supplied this madman with nuclear-power plants in exchange for empty promises to abandon a nuclear-weapons program. The current U.S. president pointed to Iraq as an example of what might happen to the other members of Club Evil. Instead of crying "uncle," North Korea and Iran are doing everything in their power to obtain the nuclear weapons that Saddam Hussein wished he had.

Hussein would not be sitting in a courtroom today had he possessed them, would he? Obviously, there are many reasons North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons independent of Hussein's outcome. But Saddam's fellow evil doers in North Korea and Iran certainly wish to escape that fate. Nuclear weapons is a pretty good insurance policy against the ignoble demise Saddam Hussein is experiencing.

The basic assumption of this line of reasoning is that having nuclear weapons prevents an invasion, right? That may be correct. I'm sure I don't know. Perhaps the Pentagon sees it that way. But why? Suppose we were to invade North Korea and they were to respond with a nuclear attack either against the invading forces or against a domestic target (assuming they could ever get their Dongs to work). What would be the U.S. response? Total annihilation of North Korea by nuclear attack is certainly a good possibility. Are the North Koreans, or anyone else for that matter, comfortable with that outcome. I wouldn't be, no matter how short and insane I was.

The fact that the United States invaded Iraq, under tHe presumption that Iraq had WMDs, and clearly believing that its troops woudl be targetted by WMDs, seems to discredit the concept that Iran and North Korea amped up their WMD programs to avoid invasion. It didn't stop the US with Iraq.

Likely, North Korea wants them simply because Kim Jong-Il is crazy.

Iran does want them for defensive purposes, but only because it is planning an offense-in a big way. From what I can tell, Iran's recent alliance with Venezuela, and the fact that they have recently set up an independent oil exchange based on the Euro: http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=9752

Seems to make it clear exactly what they are doing. Ahmadinejad believes himself to be locked in a struggle with the west of apocalyptic proportions. And towards that end, I am sure he would like nothing more than to radically de-value the dollar, and in so doing cause significant (perhaps shattering) economic damage to the globalized world. And of course, if Caracas just so happened to jump shit to the Euro at the same time as Teheran, it could only make the harm to the US that much worse.

Interestingly, the Iraq invasion as well came not too long after Saddam set up a Euro-based oil exchange for the oil-for-food program.

"Wars always have unintended consequences." This is so true. One of the reasons cited for the Iraq war was presumably to halt the spread of WMD. All this has done is to increase the spread of WMD.

As a response to North Korea developing nuclear war weapons, I think it is highly likely that Japan and South Korea will develop nuclear weapons. As a result of Iran developing nuclear weapons, I suspect it is highly likely that Iran's neighbors will develop nuclear weapons.

It seems clear that to date the Iraq war has not achieved the the desired results. Regardless who wins the elections in November I suspect there will only be a token American force of 10,000 troops or fewer based in the Iraqi region.

These will be mostly special forces who will likely be backed up by air support. They will be based in Kurdish areas and they will be prepared to intervene in the Iraqi civil war to prevent the formation of terrorist bases.

Hopefully this strategy will work because it is the one that will be used. It seems clear that our current strategy is not working. Hopefully the course correction will have better results.

I look for us to have 10,000 troops or fewer in the Iraqi region by July 2007. Hopefully the new strategy will work because it is the one we will use and clearly our current strategies clearly do not seem to be working.

For the record, I think the 20 year combined US and UN embargo had something to do with Libya getting with the program. I'm not normally one to praise economic sanctions (at least, not the way they're normally applied), but in this case Libya just couldn't survive any longer. They never got the support from the Arab world at the level they expected, and basically they really needed the money. With that set up, after 9/11 the other Arab states backed away heavily from Libya, so they lost the only friend they had. So Iraq/9-11, etc proved a tipping point, but only because the US and (this is important) most of the rest of the world and the UN had ostracized them for so very long.

Our sanctions only seem to work when everyone gets on board. Granted the US did a great job convincing most of the world (through various means noble and otherwise) to get on board with Libya. We never could get that going with Cuba though...

I think that, for better or for worse, we won't be leaving Iraq until after some military confrontation with Iran.

Military confrontation with Iran? We can't even manage the one we've got going with Iraq. Why launch the insanity into another country and then what will we do when we get there? Just digging the pit deeper and waiting for the hole to fill.

"Military confrontation with Iran? We can't even manage the one we've got going with Iraq." -asdf

Well, firstly, I said for better or for worst, not indicating any preference in the matter.

But The Iraq War is a proxy war with Iran. Most of the Iraqi Insurgency is taking their orders from Teheran, certainly almost all of its Shi'ites. The recent Hezbollah-Israel war was also almost undoubtedly triggered from Iran. Add that up with the nuke controversy, and you have a recipe for conflict.

"Why launch the insanity into another country and then what will we do when we get there? Just digging the pit deeper and waiting for the hole to fill." -asdf

NOT doing anything woudl be equivalent to what we did in Vietnam, sitting back and ignoring the Ho Chi Minh trail just because it happened to run through Cambodia and Laos.

Ben, if we're going to invade every country that rattles a sword, we'll be spreading our forces very thin for a very long time and still not be any closer to solving the problem. As Caesar said in Gladiator when Maximus said there is no one left to fight: there is always someone left to fight.

Boots on the ground will not help and if we've learned anything from Iraq, it's that once in, we will never get out. These are not the conventional military actions of your father and grandfather.

And, I do realize that most of the Iraqi aggression is rooted in Tehran. So what? If we get out of Iraq, we won't be subject to it either way.

Protect whatever interests we have in Iraq and let the Iraqis work out the rest for themselves.

The Viet Nam example is a good one in more ways than one. Specifically, what impact did it have on us when we left? What impact is it on us now? Is Viet Nam even a blip on anybodies radar? Is it on ours and was it worth 58,000 Americans lives?

"Ben, if we're going to invade every country that rattles a sword, we'll be spreading our forces very thin for a very long time and still not be any closer to solving the problem. As Caesar said in Gladiator when Maximus said there is no one left to fight: there is always someone left to fight." -asdf

Theres more than one way to skin a saracen. Invasion isn't our only option.

Aerial strikes against those nuke facilities are probably the most attractive option right now, I think.

"Boots on the ground will not help and if we've learned anything from Iraq, it's that once in, we will never get out. These are not the conventional military actions of your father and grandfather." -asdf

Couldn't agree more. Can't imagine a scenario where I would support an invasion of Iran.

"And, I do realize that most of the Iraqi aggression is rooted in Tehran. So what? If we get out of Iraq, we won't be subject to it either way.

Protect whatever interests we have in Iraq and let the Iraqis work out the rest for themselves." -asdf

Agree again here, except that we should do nothing about Iran. It does not do to let a challenge go so completely unanswered.There has to be something, even symbolic air strikes.

Sometimes you need to spray water in the dog's face, just to remind it that you can.

"The Viet Nam example is a good one in more ways than one. Specifically, what impact did it have on us when we left? What impact is it on us now? Is Viet Nam even a blip on anybodies radar? Is it on ours and was it worth 58,000 Americans lives?" -asdf

Well having been born over a decade after the last American soldier left Vietnam, I can't say what I would have said then, but I certainly don't think it jives with my view of foreign policy, which is more or less the realism school. Vietnam had neither valuable geography, wealth, or power.

Iraq however, sits in the center of the most strategically important region on the face of the Earth.

"I think that, for better or worse, we won't be leaving Iraq until after some military confrontation with Iran." Ben-T

The only way the United States military will be confronting Iran directly will be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the United States homeland or its interests outside of the middle east area. In other words, if the United States military is the only thing to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Iran will get a nuclear weapon. America will do nothing about it. At this time, the American people and our Western European allies simply will not tolerate an expansion of the war.

While a nuclear armed Iran is not a good situation, it is not something we can't manage, however, for Israel a nuclear armed Iran is catastrophic. Israel is far closer to Iran than America is. As such, a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They would be forced to act. They would not have the luxury of worrying about unintended consequences.

Ben, you discuss the possibilty of using air strikes even if they are only symbolic against Iran. This seems to be a rather cavalier use of military power.

I'm going to very briefly explain what would likely happen if America bombs Iran. This would rile up the Arab street beyond its current level of rage. We could handle this, if we had enough troops in the region to handle security for our "allies." Unfortunately we do not and given the current domestic political climate we are not going to get them. Becuase of this our "allies" in the region will be forced to side with Iran or their leaders would be swept from power. The end result of any American bombing run on Iran would be our "allies" in the region would be forced to become Taliban like regimes or they would be replaced by such regimes and to top this all off it is very unlikely that Iran's nuclear weapons program would be significantly harmed. The best case scenario is we could set them back five years or so.

In other words, their will be no direct American military actions against Iran of any type. The only way this could change would be if the domestic political situation changes. The only way to change the domestic political situation would be if Iran or its proxies attack the US or its interests outside of the middle east. Such a scenario is more likely than many people realize.

Given the current domesitc political realities within the US and our Western European allies trying to manage the threat of a nuclear armed Iran will be a much more attractive option to policy makers, however, given Iran's hostility to Israel and Iran's close proximity to Israel the Israelis may not have the luxury of "managing" this threat. They may be forced to act regardless of the likely consequences that I mentioned above. Hopefully it will not come to a situation where Israel is forced to take military action but if it does the smart thing for America and its Western European allies to do is to stay out of Israel's way.

If we must confront Iran, as I think we must, there are better ways to do this than direct military intervention. This is especially so becuase the domestic political situation will not allow a direct military confrontation with Iran. We should begin by getting back to the very basics of national defense. This begins by identifying our enemies and ranking them by how dangerous they are. I would rank them as follows: 1.)Russia, 2.)China, 3.)Venezuela, 4.)Iran, 5.) North Korea, and 6.) Iraqi "insurgents." Also, any of the above enemies will not hesitate to capitalize on our open borders. Sealing the borders and developing our own oil resources will help us to neutralize our enemies. To develop more of our own natrual resources will mean enviro whackos will need to take a hike and to secure the borders will require the multiculturist gurus to take a hike.

Finally, if we need to engage Iran militarily, the best way to do this would be to use a proxy. The Iraq study group has been commissed to formulate an exit strategy for Iraq. Part of their work may include identifying groups within Iraq that we can work with to oppose Iran. In other words, we will be engaging Iran through proxies, in much the same manner as we engaged the Soviets during the Cold War or we will not be engaging them at all.

My initial prediction was that by July 2007 there will only be 10,000 American troops or fewe in Iraq. This prediction still stands. The only way this changes would be if the domestic politcal situation changes and the only way the domestic political situation changes would be if Iran or its proxies attack Aemrica or its interests outside of the middle east.

As it stands right now, any military confrontation with Iran will be done by proxies. If any of my predictions turn out to be wrong, I will come here and admit it.

"The only way the United States military will be confronting Iran directly will be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the United States homeland or its interests outside of the middle east area. In other words, if the United States military is the only thing to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Iran will get a nuclear weapon. America will do nothing about it. At this time, the American people and our Western European allies simply will not tolerate an expansion of the war." -B.Poster

What are you basing that on? That the American people have soured on the Iraq War?

The polls still indicate that the American people think taking out Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, even though they think the occupation is bad. What that tells is that Americans are still quite wary of dictators with WMDs, and still think taking them out is worthwhile.

The reason the American people have soured on the occupation is the fact that there is no clear enemy, no material objective. Thats not the case with Iran.

"While a nuclear armed Iran is not a good situation, it is not something we can't manage, however, for Israel a nuclear armed Iran is catastrophic. Israel is far closer to Iran than America is. As such, a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They would be forced to act. They would not have the luxury of worrying about unintended consequences." -B.Poster

Nuclear Iran is something we can't manage, period. They will have a free license to do whatever they please in the region. American dominance of the Middle East will be over.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, the USA will be incapable of respoding to their actions in Iraq. Our victory there having become a strategic impossibility, as it will be if Iran gets nukes, we will leave, either sooner or later, with Shi'ite Iraq as a Iranian proxy.

Since we already left Saudi Arabia, the USA will have no strategic presence of note in the Middle East. Iran's Shi'ite power will be expanding rapidly, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq will not be there to block it as it had in the past. The powerful Sunni states, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, will have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, by acquiring nuclear weapons themselves.

Best case scenario: Most of the Middle East's dictatorships are pointing nukes at each other, the USA has no strategic presence in the region, and a proxy war, if not an official war, between the Middle East's Sunni and Shi'ite states is raging across the ruins of Iraq. Since the USA will have no strategic leverage, it will be a matter of dumb luck, and escalation, whether or not Iran and any Sunni alliance start hitting each other's oil supplies.

If they do, the results for the globalized economy could be disastrous.

I would imagine that especially the oil fields of northeastern Saudi Arabia, being populated as they are mostly by Shi'ite Arabs, would be likely to be destroyed.

Worst Case scenario: Nuclear war in the Middle East.

There isn't a strategic alternative to confronting Iran.

"I'm going to very briefly explain what would likely happen if America bombs Iran. This would rile up the Arab street beyond its current level of rage." -B.Poster

The Arab street hates and fears Iran much more than it hates and fears the United States. Iranians are both the ethnic enemies of the Arabs, as Persians, and the religious enemies of the large majority of Arabs, as Shi'ite Muslims. The Arab Street is the one with the most to lose from Iranian pre-eminence.

They did not call Saddam Hussein "The shield of the Arabs" for no reason.

"We could handle this, if we had enough troops in the region to handle security for our "allies." Unfortunately we do not and given the current domestic political climate we are not going to get them. Becuase of this our "allies" in the region will be forced to side with Iran or their leaders would be swept from power." -B.Poster

Our allies in the region would be swept from power IF they sided with Iran, not if they sided against it. Iran is not a member of the Arab family of states. It is culturally, ethnically, and religiously, alien to the Arab street. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have nothing more in common with Iran than Iraq's Sunnis and Shi'ites. In fact, they have less in common, since at least in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shi'ites are both Arabs.

"The end result of any American bombing run on Iran would be our "allies" in the region would be forced to become Taliban like regimes or they would be replaced by such regimes and to top this all off it is very unlikely that Iran's nuclear weapons program would be significantly harmed. The best case scenario is we could set them back five years or so." -B.Poster

This scenario is in contradicition of the cultural, ethnic, and religious motivations of the Middle East.

"Given the current domesitc political realities within the US and our Western European allies trying to manage the threat of a nuclear armed Iran will be a much more attractive option to policy makers, however, given Iran's hostility to Israel and Iran's close proximity to Israel the Israelis may not have the luxury of "managing" this threat. They may be forced to act regardless of the likely consequences that I mentioned above. Hopefully it will not come to a situation where Israel is forced to take military action but if it does the smart thing for America and its Western European allies to do is to stay out of Israel's way." -B.Poster

This might happen. The Arab streets prefer even Israel to Iran. Note the fact that the Arab governments condemned not Israel in its recent war, but Hezbollah.

"If we must confront Iran, as I think we must, there are better ways to do this than direct military intervention. This is especially so becuase the domestic political situation will not allow a direct military confrontation with Iran. We should begin by getting back to the very basics of national defense. This begins by identifying our enemies and ranking them by how dangerous they are. I would rank them as follows: 1.)Russia, 2.)China, 3.)Venezuela, 4.)Iran, 5.) North Korea, and 6.) Iraqi "insurgents." Also, any of the above enemies will not hesitate to capitalize on our open borders. Sealing the borders and developing our own oil resources will help us to neutralize our enemies. To develop more of our own natrual resources will mean enviro whackos will need to take a hike and to secure the borders will require the multiculturist gurus to take a hike." -B.Poster

It would remove our strategic leverage over the world's most plentiful and easily accessed oil supplies. While the United States built up this border fortress and developed its own rapidly dwindling markets, China and Russia would take control of the Persian Gulf, through their ally Iran.

By the time in which we were ready to fight, they would be ready to defeat us.

And of course the idea that you can think that simple bombing runs against Iran are politically impossible, but thats its politically feasible that we will seal our borders, remove our bases from around the world, and turn our oil market (which is incapable of meeting domestic demand) into our ONLY oil supply, is an example of cognitive dissonance.

"Finally, if we need to engage Iran militarily, the best way to do this would be to use a proxy. The Iraq study group has been commissed to formulate an exit strategy for Iraq. Part of their work may include identifying groups within Iraq that we can work with to oppose Iran. In other words, we will be engaging Iran through proxies, in much the same manner as we engaged the Soviets during the Cold War or we will not be engaging them at all." -B.Poster

Iraq is going to be our eventual counter-point to Iran. But it is nowhere near ready currently.

"My initial prediction was that by July 2007 there will only be 10,000 American troops or fewe in Iraq. This prediction still stands. The only way this changes would be if the domestic politcal situation changes and the only way the domestic political situation changes would be if Iran or its proxies attack Aemrica or its interests outside of the middle east." -B.Poster

We will not see serious troop withdrawal before 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_5

There is no reason inside of Iraq for this to be the case. There is no strategic objective for them to complete within Iraq as it currently stands.

They are staying in Iraq to buffer Iran. There isn't any alternative explanation that makes sense.

Ben

Thanks for responding to my post. I will try to briefly address a few or your points.

According to the polls I have seen most people seem to think invading Iraq was not worth it, nevertheless, a poll can be made to establish almost anything depending on how the questions are asked. I'm sure you can point me to a poll that establishes what you claim. I'll concede
your point, however, I know of no one who supports the Iraq war, as it is currently being fought. Most of the people I know want us out entirely asap and the area where I live is a VERY "conservative" area. Initially these people were staunch supporters of Iraqi Freedom. I'm assuming that in areas of the country that are more "liberal" where support for Operation Iraqi Freedom was shaky or non existent from the beginning will now be even more anti Iraqi freedom than the people who were initially staunch supporters of Iraqi freedom. Admitedly my methodology is unscientific. Its simply based on observation. Since my frame of reference is limited, it could be flawed. If the formerly pro Iraqi freedom types where I live are not going to support expansion of the war and want us cimpletely out of Iraq asap, I'm assuming that in less pro Iraqi freedom areas where support for it was shaky from the beginning they will be even less likely to support expansion of the war. The bottom line is the US cannot invade Iraq right now. First and foremost it lacks the force structure to do so effectively. Even if the US had the appropiate force structure, the American people would not stand for it. As such, no policy maker is even considering an attack of any type on Iran that involves the American military. The military may be planning for this contingency because this is whatt they do but no policy maker is even considering its implementation unless Iran its terrorist proxies attack America or its interests outside of the middle east.

With all due respect American dominance of the middle east is already over. To date the biggest winners in the GWOT have been Russia and Iran, in that order. The biggest losers have been Israel and the US. The war is not over yet. We have not lost yet, however, changes will need to be made. A frank aassessment of where we are is in order. The American people deserve the unvarnished truth.

We can either continue the same policies and commit more troops and other resources to it or we can change direction entirely. To continue with our current policy will require a massive commitment of many more troops than we currently have commited. Since the domestic political situation will not permit more troops, from my perspetive, the only option seems to be a radical change in policy. It seems clear that "stay the course" will not work and is untenable over the long haul. If Iran is to be engaged militarily, the US will use a proxy. I consider it plausible that the Iraq Study Group may be working to identify proxies that will work with us against Iran.

If we need to dominate the middle east, which I don't think we need to, then we will do better to develop more of our own oil reserves. We have MASSUVE reserves that are currently untapped because of ridiculous environmental regulations. This will give us more leverage to deal with the various tyrants wgo control the middle east. Also, we need some breathing room to build up the military. To be blunt the American military, in its currently state, is in no condition to handle either Russia or China right now. The only reason they have not attacked is becuase they would like to see us dig a deeper hole and they are even stronger.

Sealing the borders, developing our own oil resources, and changing the nature of many of our over seas military commitments can be sold to the American people, if policy makers were to step up and show leadership.

Bombing runs on Iran will not be supported by the American people nor will it be supported by the Arab street. Our "allied" governments would be inclined to support us, however, they would be forced to choose sides. Their options would be support Iran and possibly live or oppose Iran and be over thrown. The leaders of these countries do inherently realize the danger of a nuclear armed Iran and I think the Arab street does to, however. the Arab street hates the US more than they fear Iran. In order to stay in power, the leaders cannot afford active opposition by the Arab street. I know they are not thinking logically but hate tends to blind people to reality. This has largely happened in the middle east.

As we develop more of our own oil resources, we will probably continue to buy from the middle east, however, with more of our own resources at our disposal this will give us greater negotiating power when dealing with these people. As it currently stands, we need their oil but they don't need to sell it to us and to top it all off they don't like us very much. This is an unstable situation that clearly cannot continue. We should begin developing more of our own oil reserves asap.

If the plan is to have Iraq serve a s a counter point to Iran, it may become necessary to over throw the democraticly elected Iraqi government. This would have to be done by a proxy and could get VERY messy. One of the unknowns about the elected Iraqi government is, in the event of a hot war between America and Iran, who would the elected Iraqi government side with. The Iraqi Shia and the Iranian Persians have a strained history. My understanding is that during the Iran/Iraq war the Iranian Shia did not join Iran. Unfortunately I think this situation is different. In the event of an American bombing attack on Iran, I think it is more than likely the that the Iraqi government will side with Iran. In other words, I'm not optimistic that the current Iraqi government will ever be an effective counter point to Iran. We could change this, if we were to commit eneough troops to establish security. This would go a long way to winning hearts and minds, however, more troops for Iraq are not going to be coming for reasons already discussed.

I've read reports that say their will not be a significant troop reduction in Iraq before 2010. I think military planners war game for contingencies. Recently someone who has served in Iraq has informed me that, at the current level of deployment, the US military can maintain its current level of readiness for another year and maybe two at max.

This is is his assessment. I'm not sure if it is accurate. What did seem clear is he was only taking into accounts threats from countries like Iran and North Korea. He was not considering threats from Russia and China. Right now the US military is in no condition to handle Russia or China. If America plans to survive, blunt assessments of reality and not rosy prognostications are going to be needed.

If Iran is to be buffered it will have to be done by proxies or not at all. The British military leadership wants out of Iraq. Most American politicians want out of Iraq. Its pretty much unanimous. The only thing that will keep us in Iraq in masse will be an attack by Iran or its terrorist proxies on the American homeland or on American outside of the middle east region.

"According to the polls I have seen most people seem to think invading Iraq was not worth it, nevertheless, a poll can be made to establish almost anything depending on how the questions are asked. I'm sure you can point me to a poll that establishes what you claim. I'll concede" -B.Poster

Thats true. And I wouldn't support invading Iran. But the polls that say "Was taking out Saddam Hussein a good idea", the response is still yes.

"your point, however, I know of no one who supports the Iraq war, as it is currently being fought." -B.Poster

Correct.

"Most of the people I know want us out entirely asap and the area where I live is a VERY "conservative" area. Initially these people were staunch supporters of Iraqi Freedom. I'm assuming that in areas of the country that are more "liberal" where support for Operation Iraqi Freedom was shaky or non existent from the beginning will now be even more anti Iraqi freedom than the people who were initially staunch supporters of Iraqi freedom. Admitedly my methodology is unscientific. Its simply based on observation. Since my frame of reference is limited, it could be flawed. If the formerly pro Iraqi freedom types where I live are not going to support expansion of the war and want us cimpletely out of Iraq asap, I'm assuming that in less pro Iraqi freedom areas where support for it was shaky from the beginning they will be even less likely to support expansion of the war. The bottom line is the US cannot invade Iraq right now. First and foremost it lacks the force structure to do so effectively. Even if the US had the appropiate force structure, the American people would not stand for it. As such, no policy maker is even considering an attack of any type on Iran that involves the American military. The military may be planning for this contingency because this is whatt they do but no policy maker is even considering its implementation unless Iran its terrorist proxies attack America or its interests outside of the middle east." -B.Poster

I'm quite sure Bush is planning on attacking Iran in 2008. He has the right to deploy the military for up to 90 days without congressional approval. I believe he plans to order the bombings in '08 and then slide right out of office.

"The bottom line is the US cannot invade Iraq right now." -B.Poster

I don't advocate invading Iran, and I agree that if you were under the impression I was advocating an invasion, its just ridiculous.

"We can either continue the same policies and commit more troops and other resources to it or we can change direction entirely. To continue with our current policy will require a massive commitment of many more troops than we currently have commited. Since the domestic political situation will not permit more troops, from my perspetive, the only option seems to be a radical change in policy. It seems clear that "stay the course" will not work and is untenable over the long haul. If Iran is to be engaged militarily, the US will use a proxy. I consider it plausible that the Iraq Study Group may be working to identify proxies that will work with us against Iran." -B.Poster

I don't think Bush will take any action on Iraq. The next president is likely to beef up our troop numbers there.

I see no reason to do this. There are no strategic objectives to be had in Iraq. We won the Iraq War. We cannot influence the Iraqi Civil War via our military might.

"If we need to dominate the middle east, which I don't think we need to, then we will do better to develop more of our own oil reserves. We have MASSUVE reserves that are currently untapped because of ridiculous environmental regulations. This will give us more leverage to deal with the various tyrants wgo control the middle east. Also, we need some breathing room to build up the military. To be blunt the American military, in its currently state, is in no condition to handle either Russia or China right now. The only reason they have not attacked is becuase they would like to see us dig a deeper hole and they are even stronger." -B.Poster

Any war with either, currently, would be another Desert Storm. They don't stand a chance, they have outdated equipment and most importantly an outdated strategic model.

Russia is not even considering in its heart of hearts a war with the US. Assuming China was, they would be utterly defeated. The US military bases its strategy around fighting two wars at once-a regional war in the Persian Gulf, and a theater war in East Asia. Iraq has not effected our ability to deploy in East Asia. If China attacked us, they would be finished. Our overwhelming air power would dissect their Soviet-style infantry and tanks if they tried to advance more than a few miles at a time.

No nation can take on the US in a conventional war, because no nation can challenge US air supremacy. And once you have lost air supremacy, it is impossible to use your ground forces, as they will be bombed to smithereens if they try to advance or retreat.

The most powerful illustration I know of is the "Highway of Death" from Operation Desert Storm.

"Sealing the borders, developing our own oil resources, and changing the nature of many of our over seas military commitments can be sold to the American people, if policy makers were to step up and show leadership."

This would be strategically crippling. If we removed our support from Saudi Arabia, its government would fall to Wahabbiists and Al Qaeda sympathizers within the country. This would give them control over the world's larget oil exporting nation at the same time that China and India are becoming the two largest energy markets in human history, and both nowhere near ready to move off of oil.

To be frank, we may as well just give bin Laden nukes as a show of good faith.

Bombing runs on Iran will not be supported by the American people nor will it be supported by the Arab street. Our "allied" governments would be inclined to support us, however, they would be forced to choose sides. Their options would be support Iran and possibly live or oppose Iran and be over thrown. The leaders of these countries do inherently realize the danger of a nuclear armed Iran and I think the Arab street does to, however. the Arab street hates the US more than they fear Iran. In order to stay in power, the leaders cannot afford active opposition by the Arab street. I know they are not thinking logically but hate tends to blind people to reality. This has largely happened in the middle east." -B.Poster

Sorry but this is just inaccurate. The Arab peoples are much more afraid of Iran than the United States. Their conflict with the United States goes back maybe sixty years. Their conflict with Iran goes back to before there was recorded history.

"As we develop more of our own oil resources, we will probably continue to buy from the middle east, however, with more of our own resources at our disposal this will give us greater negotiating power when dealing with these people. As it currently stands, we need their oil but they don't need to sell it to us and to top it all off they don't like us very much. This is an unstable situation that clearly cannot continue. We should begin developing more of our own oil reserves asap." -B.Poster

Buying from the Middle East would swiftly cease to be an option, as Chinese and Russian bases began to pop up across the region. And telling the Middle East governments that less, not more, of their milk and honey comes from Washington will give them less, not more, inclination to care what we say. Especially once they have the knowledge that the US will not do anything abroad to stop them.

"If the plan is to have Iraq serve a s a counter point to Iran, it may become necessary to over throw the democraticly elected Iraqi government. This would have to be done by a proxy and could get VERY messy. One of the unknowns about the elected Iraqi government is, in the event of a hot war between America and Iran, who would the elected Iraqi government side with. The Iraqi Shia and the Iranian Persians have a strained history. My understanding is that during the Iran/Iraq war the Iranian Shia did not join Iran. Unfortunately I think this situation is different. In the event of an American bombing attack on Iran, I think it is more than likely the that the Iraqi government will side with Iran. In other words, I'm not optimistic that the current Iraqi government will ever be an effective counter point to Iran. We could change this, if we were to commit eneough troops to establish security. This would go a long way to winning hearts and minds, however, more troops for Iraq are not going to be coming for reasons already discussed." -B.Poster

Well I used Iraq because it is a convenient term, but I don't think that Iraq, as a country, will survive the Iraqi Civil War. It is already three countries in all but name.

What I refer to is Iraqi Kurdistan and the Sunni center. Shi'ite Iraq is irrecoverably lost to the enemy, and was before the first American boot crossed the border from Kuwait.

"I've read reports that say their will not be a significant troop reduction in Iraq before 2010. I think military planners war game for contingencies. Recently someone who has served in Iraq has informed me that, at the current level of deployment, the US military can maintain its current level of readiness for another year and maybe two at max." -B.Poster

Can maintain? What exactly is going to happen that the military will be unable to maintain?

Regardless, we may leave in 2007. The sooner the better, I think. We should have left in 2003, maybe 2004.

As long as our 14 bases remain, I see no strategic stake left in Iraq. Every strategic objective we set out to accomplish was accomplished. We aren't interested in winning the Iraqi Civil War for either side, and we can't stop it from happening, so we shouldn't interfere. What needed to be accomplished in Iraq was accomplished.

"This is is his assessment. I'm not sure if it is accurate. What did seem clear is he was only taking into accounts threats from countries like Iran and North Korea. He was not considering threats from Russia and China. Right now the US military is in no condition to handle Russia or China. If America plans to survive, blunt assessments of reality and not rosy prognostications are going to be needed." -B.Poster

We could handle either, but we won't be doing so for quite some time, assuming we ever do. The Iraq War has essentially served to put a stop to Russian and Chinese designs on the region, unless we don't deal with Iran at all.

We could handle any nation on Earth in a conventional war, period. No nation on Earth can challenge American air superiority, so no nation on Earth can mobilize its ground or sea forces in a conventional conflict.

"If Iran is to be buffered it will have to be done by proxies or not at all. The British military leadership wants out of Iraq. Most American politicians want out of Iraq. Its pretty much unanimous. The only thing that will keep us in Iraq in masse will be an attack by Iran or its terrorist proxies on the American homeland or on American outside of the middle east region." -B.Poster

I am sure they do. But I am quite confident that George W. Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office. He is not a man who bows to popular opinion, especially on the matter of his foreign policy, and he is well aware of the thread posted by the mullahs.

I don't advocate shutting ourselves off from the world completely, but I do agree with BP when he suggests that we take control in our own backyard and change our approach on how we use our military based on the way that it has to be applied in today’s world. This statement is very true:

"Sealing the borders, developing our own oil resources, and changing the nature of many of our over seas military commitments can be sold to the American people, if policy makers were to step up and show leadership".

Certainly, some policing of global events is necessary and military action can't be ruled out completely if it's in the best interest of the United States or if it is the only option. But we need to start getting smarter about it and consider ‘America first’ and worry about the rest of world only as how it effects us.

An America First policy would not advocate isolation or non-intervention, because neither would air our interests.

I should clarify some of my positions. When I discussed the military threats posed by Russia, I assumed that a war with them would not be fought with conventional weapons alone. From what I know about Russia, the country is much more prepared to withstand nuclear attacks than is the US. Russia would be expected to begin any conflict with the US with a massive nuclear strike. I assume Russia is an enemy of the US becuase they seem to support every enemy of the US either militarily or diplomatically, however, I can't say for certain what there intentions are. I am concerned that American and Western policy makers seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to Russia.

With regards to China I assumed the US would not be using WMD. While it does appear the US has a qualitative edge over China, China's huge numbers would likely cancel out any qualitative edge. I would also expect the Chinese to use a psy ops campaign within the American media to very quickly wear down the will of the American people to sustain the war effort. If the US were to use nuclear weapons, the US would win, as it has a huge edge in this area.

I'm not sure what a smart use of military force is, however, I think I know what is not a smart use of force. Having roughly 140,000 American troops stationed in Iraq, at this point seems to me to make no sense what so ever. This number of troops is to many to avoid the responsibilty of actually running the country but it is not enough to actually run the country effectively. As such, I suspect we will be changing course very soon. I see basiclly two options. Option 1 is make a vast commitment of troops. The troop commitment should be enough to actually secure the country and stop the flow of weapons from Iran and Syria to insurgents. This would also greatly enhance the chances for the democratic government to succeed by providing security. This would also help the building projects. It would be much easier to complete them. This could be done with about 500,000 troops, however, I'm not sure we have this many trained American troops to commit to Iraq. Even if we did, the will is lacking on the part of the American people. Also, I'm not sure a commitment of 500,000 troops to Iraq is consistent with American national security interests. We will need to remain flexible enough to handle other things that may manifest themselves. This leads to option 2. Withdraw all American troops to either Kurdistan or Kuwait and get most of them out of the middle east entirely. The only forces that would be left would be about 10,000 troops. They would be mostly special forces and they would be backed up by air support. They would be prepared to intervene in the Iraqi civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases and to try and thwart Iranian and Syrian interference in Iraqi affairs. Any direct engagement of the Iranians would probably be done by proxies. There are probably some of the militias who will work with us. We will be settling on option 2 or some variation of this very shortly. This will happen no matter who wins the election this November. For better or worse the democratic project for Iraq is probably over. Iraq may achieve a representative democracy that is simillar to what Western nations have, however, America will have had nothing to do with it. We will be withdrawing soon.

Ultimately the problem with Iraq is Iran. There are some groups within Iran who despise the current leadership. We should work with them to affect regiem change. This is the best way to handle Iran. In my opinion, whether it is a large scale invasion using land forces or a limited bombing run, this still counts as an invasion and it should not be taken lightly. I don't think the US will be bombing Iran but Israel very well may. A nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They may have to act regardless of the political risks. I could be wrong and the US may take military action against Iran. I'm more sure that the US will be leaving Iraq in masse very soon than I am about whether or not the US will bomb Iran. We will be officially out of Sunni and Shia areas by July 2007. As I said before, if I'm wrong I'll admit it.

This is a great article and worthy of a look as it says it all.....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

I liked this blurb in particular:

"Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default."

Asdf

That is so right and the worst part about it seems to be that all of the focus on Iraq nad Islamic extremists has caused us to lose sight of far more dangerous enemies like Russia and China.