Only a terrorist sympathizer would think so...and one ignorant of military tactics and capabilities. B
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2007/09/26/bookma ned_0927.html War with Iran would be lose-lose plan The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 09/27/07 We are already fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, with mixed results and no sense that victory might be imminent. Our military is straining under that burden, and international support for U.S. policies are at an all-time low. Yet there are some in Washington and elsewhere, including at the upper levels of the Bush administration, who are flirting with the idea of launching a third war, this time against Iran. It is crazy talk, the rhetoric of fools. But still you hear it, like a gathering murmur, rising from the same power-addled souls who promised us we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. And we have seen where such talk can lead us if it is left unchallenged. The case for military action centers on two things: Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, in defiance of international treaties, and its destructive meddling in Iraq's affairs. Both are valid and deadly serious concerns. Preventing Iran from going nuclear, for example, has to be a primary goal of U.S. foreign policy. As those who itch for war point out, there's also little doubt that the Iranian regime is supplying weapons and perhaps training to Shiite militias in Iraq, who in turn have used those weapons to kill U.S. soldiers and Marines. In fact, given Iran's strategic situation - it is squeezed between Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west, both occupied by its American enemies - it's foolish to believe the Iranians would respond in any other way. With U.S. troops already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only military options available are attacks by U.S. planes against Iranian targets, particularly its nuclear infrastructure. Unfortunately, such attacks are not likely to be very effective. Those facilities have been hardened against attack and spread around the country in anticipation of just such a situation, and most military experts believe that bombing alone would set Iran's weapons program back by a few years at most. On the other hand, such attacks would probably rally Iranian public opinion around its repressive government, making long-term regime change less likely. It would also bolster Iranian determination to acquire nuclear weapons in the future, so no one would ever dare attack it that way again. Furthermore, Iran would almost certainly respond to attacks on its territory by increasing the flow of weapons into Iraq, and the chances of a general uprising in Iraq against U.S. forces would increase considerably. Our long military supply lines from Kuwait to Baghdad - carrying essential fuel, food, weapons and ammunition through southern Iraq - would also be vulnerable to Iran's Shiite militia allies, especially as the British withdraw from that region. In addition, Iran would also try to choke off the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where many of the world's oil tankers transit, with enormous economic ramifications. We usually think of war as a win-lose proposition, and assume that America, with its overwhelming military power, will always walk away with the W. The reality is that a lot of wars turn out to be lose-lose propositions, with neither side achieving its goals. Saddam certainly didn't win his war with the United States, for example, but it's hard to argue that we won either. Likewise, Iran couldn't hope to win a war against us, but we would probably be losers too. By attacking Iran as its time in office expires, the Bush administration would hand the next administration an even bigger catastrophe in the Middle East. It would also close the door on almost all nonmilitary options a new administration might want to pursue for resolving the crisis with Iran and with the larger Islamic world as well. In fact, the resulting cycle of violence could very well force the United States to increase, rather than draw down, its military commitment to the Middle East, perhaps even requiring a draft. Most political leaders would consider it irresponsible to force such a choice on a successor. But you get the feeling that for some in the Bush administration, that would be the whole idea. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
