Of course it had you chuckling. You think that Bush is as dumb as the author does. When Bush went after Afghanistan, all the people who thought Bush was dumb thought he'd end up like all the other "conquerors" who invaded Afghanistan. Trouble was, Bush wasn't out to "conquer" Afghanistan and proved the critics blindingly wrong.
Then, Iraq. "Well," the critics said, "Iraq is different and Bush's plan won't work in Iraq." What the critics didn't count on was that Bush not only figured out that Iraq was different than Afghanistan, he had a different plan (imagine that!). Once again, the critics were blindingly wrong. They claimed redemption because "there were no WMD" and "Bush didn't plan for the postwar phase." Never mind that they didn't foresee it either. Since Bush didn't foresee it, he's dumb. Of course, I'm still waiting for the definitive history to be written and I suspect that when it is (probably not for a decade or two) we'll find that the WMD's got moved to Syria and Bush compromised too much with his critics in Congress (and his administration) on the postwar plans and thereby chose the wrong plan of several on offer. Now, we're supposed to forget all this history and remember that "Bush is dumb" (extra points for cutesy turns of phrase and metaphors, like "live firecrackers in mouth"). He's going to screw up and get it wrong. What's interesting about this piece is that it isn't even internally consistent. There are all kinds of dire warnings about what would happen during an "occupation" followed by an acknowledgement that the most likely scenario would be a series of raids, after which we'd leave. Sure there are some warnings about how the raids could turn out badly. But even they overstate things. I don't know much about the Mullah Omar raid, but the Mogadishu raid was a result of inadequate backup--which is unlikely even to a "stretched thin" US military. Another thing to notice is which military assets are "stretched thin" and which are not. Ground forces are "stretched thin." (Although I would be shocked if the US is not officially *understating* the capability of the Iraqi forces for "strategic" reasons--if you know what I mean. :-) But Air and Naval assets are definitely not. In fact, the Iraq war has freed them up. We used to keep two or three carriers in the Persian Gulf area. Now, we may only need one (or we may not have any!!!) We used to have several wings of Air Force based in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, etc. Now, we still need some, but it's a lot less. The current air-to-ground support needs require a smaller force than the "no-fly zone" enforcement required, pre-war. What's really funny is how the Pentagon is always "warned" by its critics that "generals are always fighting the last war" while it's the critics always seem to be the ones fighting the war two or three wars back. Meanwhile, it is the Pentagon which is defining how the new war is being fought. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. P.S. I have no comments below. I've just copied the whole post from Jay. Jay P. Hailey wrote: > This article had me chuckling. > > We'll see what happens > > http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html > > > Super War Preview > The Iranian Suicide Bombers vs. The American Crusaders > Gary Brecher > > By Gary Brecher ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) > > Everybody's asking me what'll happen if we attack Iran. To get a quick > preview, just do what this guy in my eighth-grade class did: put a > firecracker in your mouth, hold it between your front teeth, and light the > fuse. > > "It's just like the homecoming game!" Bush settles in to enjoy the > upcoming > slaughter. > > Your friends won't believe you'll go through with it. So when it blows up > in > your face, you'll expect them to be impressed. And you'll be surprised, > just > like this guy in junior high was surprised, when all you get is a > perforated > eardrum and a reputation as the biggest dumbass in the school. > > Right now, Bush is standing there with a lit match and a big firecracker > labeled "Iran" in his mouth. Except it's more like an M-80 or a whole > stick > of dynamite than a firecracker. Nobody believes he'll be dumb enough to > light it, to actually attack Iran. Even the Iranians don't believe it; > Khameini, their head Mullah, said last week "America is in no position to > invade Iran." > > He's right about that. Even the US Army brass admits we're > "overstretched." > We don't even have enough troops to control Iraq; a war with Iran would > mean > calling up every National Guard unit we have. Even then, it would take > years > to get them combat-ready. > > And this time the Brits won't come with us. They've been making that > clear, > on the quiet. If we go in, it'll be as a coalition of one. > > So Khameini's right; we can't attack Iran. But that doesn't mean we won't. > Khameini was making the same mistake everybody's been making: assuming > Bush > and his cronies have a lick of sense. > > The best way of guessing what Bush will do is asking, what's the worst > thing > he could do to America? Whatever it is, that's what he'll do. I think he's > been possessed by bin Laden, because everything he's done has been exactly > what Al Quaeda hoped for. Right now, bin Laden is praying to Allah that > we'll be stupid enough to attack Iran. That would be the cherry on his > halal > sundae, the one thing that could actually finish us off as a Superpower. > > In my "Quagmire Bowl" article I said the Iraq war probably wouldn't be > fatal. It's definitely hurt us, but it won't mean the downfall of America. > Well, if we invade Iran, that bet is off. All bets are off. People don't > realize how fast a Superpower can fall. It only takes one invasion too > many. > > Napoleon was unstoppable before he invaded Russia. So was Hitler. Now > France > and Germany are "Old Europe." > > Invading the wrong country can age you faster than driving a Long Beach > bus > on the night shift. Invading Iran helped end the win-streak of the best, > biggest Empire of all, the Romans. It was in 260 AD, when emperor Valerius > headed east to deal with the Persians who were kickin' up a fuss on the > eastern border of the Empire. This Valerian would've risen high in Dubya's > administration, because he was a real hard charger, a go-getter...and dumb > as a half brick. He charged right into Iraq -- they called it Mesopotamia > back then -- even though his troops were dying of plague all around him. > The > Persians sat back, watched Roman troops keeling over, and had a good > laugh, > eating pistachios in the shade while Valerian tried to figure out what to > do. > > Naturally, he decided it was time for bold action. That's the only trick > these go-getters know. It reminds me of what one of MacArthur's aides said > about him: "When it paid to be aggressive, he was aggressive. And when it > didn't pay to be aggressive...he was aggressive." > > Valerian figured a little proactive salesmanship would settle things, so > he > demanded a meeting with the Persian emperor, Sapor--who couldn't believe > his > luck. Sapor ordered the slaves to cook a big banquet, bring out the best > silverware -- and had his troops hide in the banquet hall till he gave the > signal. Valerian stomped in, Sapor snapped his fingers and Valerian ended > up > a live trophy, dragged around in chains through every city in the Persian > empire till his purple robes were shreds. > > There's a moral to this story: Persians are tricky, clever people. They've > always had that reputation. You don't want people like that for enemies. > Unfortunately, Bush won't be leading the charge the way Valerian did, so > we > probably won't get to see him dragged through Tehran in chains. But we'll > see worse things: casualty lists that will make Iraq look like a beach > volleyball game, American armies losing conventional battles, and after a > few years, a humiliating exit. > > Iran is scarier than Iraq in every way you can name. First of all, it's > physically way bigger, three times the size of Iraq. The population is 65 > million, nearly three times as many as Iraq. The Iranians are young, too. > Their birthrate is way down now, around 2 kids per woman, but back in the > Khomeini years it was one of the highest in the world. So right now, the > Iranian population has a demographic profile that's a military planner's > dream: not too many little kids to take care of, but a huge pool of > fighting-age men -- about 18 million. > > "Go War!" Bush the Yale cheerleader > > And it won't be just young, fit men fighting us. Thanks to the invention > of > the suicide car bomb, guerrilla commanders will have someplace to send 70 > year old volunteers: down to the garage to pick up a Plymouth packed full > of > fertilizer bomb. You don't have to be young to put the pedal to the metal. > > The insurgents' DMV test will be real simple: "OK, Grandpa, can you make > out > the silhouette of a Bradley or Humvee, and aim your car at it?" Do that > and > you pass. They hand you the keys, and you get a quick, painless martyr's > exit. Everybody will want to get in on the fun: Grandpa, Grandma, even the > cripples, with specially adapted pedals so they can chin-pilot their car > bombs into our patrols. > > The suicide car bomb is a good example of why I don't worship hardware > like > most war fans do. These cars are actually no-tech guided surface-to- > surface > cruise missiles--and damn effective. We've found that out the hard way. > All > it takes is a driver who's willing to die for the pleasure of killing the > enemy. Put him (or her) in an old jalopy stuffed with fertilizer and > detonators and you've got a highly accurate, fire-and-forget missile. > > They're especially deadly in urban warfare, because they're perfectly > camouflaged till they actually blow up. And all for the price of a used > car > and a few bags of Miracle Gro. > > Our cruise missiles are real showpieces, ultra hi-tech. They can be > launched > from subs, surface ships, planes and ground launchers. They can guide > themselves over hundreds of miles, they cost millions apiece (usually > hundreds of times as much as the huts or sheds we aim them at)--but > they're > useless to us in Iraq, whereas the suicide car-bomb cruise missiles are > hurting us every single day. > > It's the software inside people's heads that wins wars nowadays. You > hardware freaks are going to have to face that fact one of these days. And > it's this brain-software that we're hopeless at programming. Iraq has > proved > pretty clearly we don't have a clue how to use the Middle-Eastern brain > OS. > In fact, we've actually done the impossible: reprogrammed the miserable, > cowardly Iraqis into fierce warriors. > > Remember Gulf War I? Remember those pitiful fags crawling up to our > soldiers > to surrender on their hands and knees, sobbing like babies? Two years of > occupation by Bush's morons has turned those cowards into fearless > kamikazes > in Oldsmobiles. > > So just imagine what the Iranians, the original Islamic suicide squads, > will > do when we invade. There'll be traffic jams, ten-mile backups, outside > every > US base, thousands of car bombers honking and changing lanes trying to get > to the front of the line and make that final commute to Paradise. It'll be > like the San Diego freeway on a Monday morning, except the fenderbenders > will be a little more serious. > > The Iranians, unlike the Iraqis, have always been willing to die for their > country. In the Iran-Iraq War (1980-89) thousands of Iranians volunteered > to > charge across Iraqi minefields, knowing they were going to die. It scared > the Hell out of the Iraqis. They threw everything at those crazy Persian > suicide charges, even poison gas. And the Iranians just kept coming. If > you > want a more complete account of that war, read my column, "The War Nobody > Watched" in eXile #178. The short version is simple: Iranians are brave, > determined people. Don't mess with them. > > Of course all the NeoCon crazies are peddling the old story that "once we > invade, the people will rally to the cause of freedom." > > Yeah. Just like they did in Iraq. If we couldn't get people on our side > after deposing a monster like Saddam, what chance do you think we have of > winning hearts and minds in Iran? The kids in Iran are pissed off at the > way > the old Mullahs won't let 'em rock and roll, but the idea that they'll > support an American invasion because they're bored is totally insane. It's > like imagining that the kids in Footloose would've backed a Soviet > invasion > of Nebraska because John Lithgow wouldn't let them hold school dances. > > The argument between Mullahs and kids in Iran is a classic family fight. > And > you know what happens when some intruder crashes in on the middle of one > of > those: the whole family unites in about a millisecond and tears him apart. > > The Iranians already hate us. They have since 1953, when the CIA staged a > coup to get rid of a popular Lefty Prime Minister, Mossadeq. Way back in > the > 70s, when most of the world still kinda liked us, crowds in Tehran chanted > "Marg bar Amrika," "Death to America." > > We're also getting told we'll be able to exploit the ethnic divisions > inside > Iran. The fact is, Iran's ethnic problems are nowhere near as bad as > Iraq's. > More than half of the population is ethnically Persian. The next-biggest > group is the Azerbaijani, about a quarter of the population. They squabble > with the Iranian majority from time to time, but they're fellow Shi'ites, > they intermarry all the time- there's no real hatred between them. There > are > a few Arabs in Western Iran, maybe 3% of the population. But if you're > thinking we could bring them over to our side, forget it. Saddam already > tried that during the Iran-Iraq War and got nowhere. And if they're not > going to rebel for a fellow Arab who lives next door, you better believe > they won't rise up to help us Christian Crusaders. > > That leaves us with the Kurds, who are about 10% of the Iranian > population. > There are all kinds of factions in Kurdistan, all of them armed and ready > to > kill each other, so we might be able to sign up a few of the really crazy > gangs to work with us. But they would have zero chance of controlling a > country as big, fierce and clever as Iran. > > Face it: we have no friends left in Iran. Thanks to Bush, we have no > friends > left anywhere in the Muslim world, except a few sleazes like Allawi -- and > he'd be torn to pieces if he showed himself in the street without Delta > Force bodyguards. > > If we attack Iran, that'll make three Muslim countries invaded in three > years. We may as well dress our soldiers in white tunics with red crosses > on > them, like they did in the Middle Ages. > > We'd be fighting on three fronts: the conventional war against the Iranian > armed forces, guerrilla war in the territories we'd conquered, and > worldwide > terror attacks by every group that sympathizes with Iran. > > The third front, international terror attacks, would be the scariest of > all. > Because unlike Iraq, Iran actually does have terrorist connections. Very > good ones, with some very scary people. Iran is the only country where > Shia > Islam is the state religion, so Shiites all over think of Iran the way > old-time Catholics used to think of Rome. Attacking Iran would drive them > insanely angry, not that it takes much to get Shiites in a crazy, suicidal > mood. > > Would America Do A Thing Like That? > > "The possibility of a U.S. attack against Iran is very low. We think > America > is not in a position to take a lunatic action of attacking Iran," > > Iran President Mohammed Khatami said. January 19, 2005. > > "The Americans aren't coming. They wouldn't do a thing like that." > > Manuel Noriega, on the eve of the US invasion of Panama, 1989. (Quoted in > Commanders by Bob Woodward, page 158). > > I've written before about how Shiites see the world ("Shi'ite! Holy > Shi'ite!" eXile #197). They love martyrdom, and don't care whether they > win > or lose as long as they take a few of the enemy with them. So you can't > "shock and awe" them with superior firepower, or discourage them by > inflicting a lot of casualties. They're the perfect suicide bombers -- in > fact, it was the Shi'ites in Lebanon who perfected the suicide car bomb. > The > first time it happened, a 16-year-old girl drove a car full of explosives > into an Israeli APC. The Israelis were shaken; in 25 years of fighting the > Arabs, nobody else had done that to them. > > Eventually, the Shi'ite Hizbollah guerrillas in Southern Lebanon drove the > Israelis out. They were just more willing to take casualties than the > Israelis were, even if the exchange was 20 or 30 dead guerrillas for every > Israeli killed. > > And guess which guerrilla group is closest to Iran? That's right, Lebanese > Hizbollah. Iran is tight with all the Shi'ite militias in Lebanon, in the > Bekaa Valley and Beirut as well as the South. > > We'll also be pissing off the Iraqi Shi'ites, 60% of the Iraqi population. > Right now they're cooperating with us -- not because they like us, but > because we're helping them use their majority to take over Iraq. > > It's a laugh, the way Bush's people say the Shi'ite enthusiasm for voting > proves that "democracy is taking hold" in Iraq. All it proves is that > Shi'ites can count. They've got 60% of the vote sewed up, and we're riding > shotgun for them, absorbing all the violence the Sunnis can dish out, > while > the Shia go out and grab power by the ballot box. But if we attack Iran, > they'll turn on us like Sadr's boys did in April 2004, and cities like > Karbala, Najaf and Basra will be on the front page every day. It'll be a > Shi'ite tsunami, with terrorism in places you'd never expect. Lots of > excitable Iranian expats are going to wire up their Mercs with HE. They'll > be the richest, best-groomed suicide bombers in history -- Armani suits > instead of death shrouds, and Ferraris instead of old clunkers. It'll put > terrorism in a whole new income bracket. > > Meanwhile, what'll happen in the big battle between us and the Iranian > forces? Iran's conventional forces are the LEAST scary part of the > problem. > They're in bad shape: lots of men (400,000, with another 120,000 in the > Revolutionary Guards) but starved for materiel. Most of their old stock > was > destroyed in the war against Iraq, and we've been discouraging suppliers > from sending replacements. Russia, China and North Korea have been Iran's > suppliers lately--a big switch from the 70s, when the Shah preferred to > buy > his weapons systems from the US and UK. > > They claim to have 1500 tanks, but the bulk of their MBTs are old and > rusty. > Since 1989, all they've acquired was 500-odd T-72s, with about that many > BMP-2 APCs. That's not much armor for such a big force, and the T-72 > hasn't > exactly covered itself in glory in the two Gulf wars. > > Their air force, which used to be the second-best in the Mideast (after > Israel, obviously) is in even sorrier shape, with a couple squadrons > flying > MiG-29s and Su-24 CAS fighter/bombers. The rest is rusting hulks left over > from the Shah's buying sprees. > > One cool bit of trivia: the Iranian AF used to be the only one outside the > US to fly the F-14. Most were grounded when we embargoed Iran, and a few > were lost in the Iraq War, but I haven't been able to find out what > happened > to the rest. Anybody know? > > Other items they've been buying should be worrying us much more. For > instance, they've invested heavily in Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles, > which have been fitted on ten new, fast coastal-attack ships. In a column > of > mine a couple of years ago ("U Sank My Carrier" eXile #156), I talked > about > the very scary outcome of a Persian Gulf war game, when USMC General Paul > van Ripen, who was playing the part of Iranian commander, managed to sink > half our Persian Gulf task force, including a carrier, with simultaneous > attacks by small planes and fast attack craft. > > Their missile forces are another worry -- not for what they could do to > our > troops but for the havoc they could start up if the Iranians, under > attack, > lost their cool and started targeting countries supporting the US. Once > again, nobody's really sure exactly what missiles Iran has, or what > quantities they've got. They definitely do have plenty of our old friend > the > Scud -- maybe 250 Scud B (range 285-330 miles depending on warhead; > accuracy > zero) and another 350 Scud C (range 500-700 miles). > > As we found out in two Gulf wars, Scuds are all hype -- unless you have > the > guts to fit them with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads. Saddam > never > did. (Though he did fire chemical shells against the Iranians and the > Kurds.) The Iranians just might. They've got the chemical weapons: mustard > gas, cyanide, and the scariest of all, VX, a very potent, hard-to-clean-up > nerve gas. > > One of the big arguments right now is whether the Iranians can actually > field their Shahab-3, a newer better missile designed by North Korea and > also supplied to Pakistan (where it's called the Ghauri II). As usual, the > warmongers are claiming Iran has 'em and plans to use 'em on us. Cooler > heads say that's unlikely; so far there have only been a few failed test > flights, with the Shahab-3 blown up mid-flight (which is usually a sign > the > test failed). > > After we all got suckered into believing Saddam could gas London with 45 > minutes warmup, I'm not buying the scare stories till I see some proof. We > know the Iranians have Scuds; we know they have chemical warheads. That's > more than enough to worry about. Because these people aren't cowards like > Saddam; I can see them being real sore losers if the US invades and > defeats > their army. The kind of sore losers who press every Doomsday button they > can. > > Of course, nobody is claiming the US is going to launch an all-out > invasion > of Iran. The rumors coming out of the Pentagon say it'll be a mix of air > strikes and quick, small special ops raids on nuclear sites and key > military > installations. The idea is to destroy as much of the military > infrastructure > as we can, and crush their nuclear program before it can produce working > nukes. > > The biggest, scariest nuclear site is Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf. It > worried the Iraqis so much they bombed it before the two reactors were > brought online. The Iranians learned a hard lesson from that raid, and > started dispersing the nuke program all over the country. They're working > on > 15 sites, which they say are going to be used for "peaceful purposes." I > love the way nuclear scientists talk about "peace." That was Stalin's > favorite word, and the nuclear-science types mean it about as much as he > did. > > Of course the Iranians want nukes. They're surrounded by traditional > enemies, they know the US is itching to attack, and they consider > themselves > Allah's representatives on earth. If you were in that situation, wouldn't > you be going all-out to get some nukes? > > The experts all say there's no way Iran could have any nuclear weapons > yet. > Maybe they're right; even experts have to be right once in a while. So the > question is how much time it will take them to develop nukes. Estimates go > from a year to six years. The trouble with these estimates is that they're > always bent to help somebody's agenda. For instance, the Israelis are the > ones saying Iran may go nuke in a year or less. That's because they want > us > to panic, so we'll do the dirty work of blasting Iran's nuke sites for > them. > > The six-year estimates are coming out of Europe, because they're such > wimps > they'll say anything to avoid trouble. Truth is, I have no idea how close > the Iranians are to a working nuke, and I don't believe anybody else does > either. If the CIA was any good, we'd have a clue, but those poor bastards > couldn't infiltrate a public library, let alone an Iranian nuclear plant. > > If we do go in with quick commando raids and air strikes, we might get > away > with it. The Iranians would definitely try to retaliate by proxy, getting > Hizbollah and the Iraqi Shi'ites to attack Americans anywhere they go. But > we could handle that. The real worry is that these lightning raids are > never > as simple and quick as they're supposed to be. Remember the all-day > firefight in Somalia, where we lost 18 Rangers? That was supposed to be a > lightning raid: chopper in, grab Aidid, get out before the locals could > react. A few hours later, the whole US force in Somalia was engaged > against > the whole population of Mogadishu. > > Remember the lightning raid by Delta and the Rangers on Mullah Omar's > house? > That didn't exactly come off according to plan either. Once a raid goes > bad, > soldiers want to go in to rescue their buddies. Then they're trapped, and > more guys go in to rescue them. And without ever meaning to, you've got a > conventional battle going on deep in the enemy's homeland. And once that > happens, the situation is out of control. > > If the Iranian army and revolutionary guards play it smart, they'll harass > and retreat, trading land for time the way the Russians did in WW II. In > the > territory we did control, we'd have a massive insurgency. With the Iraqi > Shia all fired up, we'd have garrisons pinned down all over Iraq, and all > through whatever chunk of Iran we occupied. And no real guarantee we wiped > out all the nuclear sites, because our intelligence is so lousy we might > never have heard of the most secret labs (which may well be underground in > the Iranian desert). > > And we're actually thinking about doing this. Incredible. It's like a man > with a pit bull chomping on his leg purposely opening the door to a kennel > where there are a dozen rottweilers ready to tear him apart. > > In fact, it's such a stupid idea, and it'd be such a total disaster for > America, that Bush probably will do it. Anybody else starting to wonder if > he and Cheney are actually Al Quaeda moles? > > > -- > Jay P Hailey ~Meow!~ > MSNIM - jayphailey ; > AIM -jayphailey03; > ICQ - 37959005 > HTTP://jayphailey.8m.com > > "Big Business + Big Government = Tyranny" > > > > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [email protected] > List info and subscriber options: > http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
