# Iran and Syria - war of the future?



## jmackenzie_15 (1 Jan 2005)

Iran being already named by President Bush as part of the 'axis of evil' and Syria suspected of supporting the insurgency, along with their general defiance of the United States (Just friday I think they refused to join in on discussions about iraqs future or something like that) Does anyone think war with these countries is a possibility?

If it is proven Iran is using its 'nuclear programme' for weapons instead of energy, 
If it is proven (although I think probobly impossible and will always be heresay) that Syria is supporting/organizing/funding the Iraqi insurgency
plus the fact that before the war they seemed to like vocally denouncing the US, and now after the war has become a burden and the US military stretched a little thin, they must feel free to say as they wish.

I havnt done alot of research on the topic, but it seems almost every day somewhere in the news theres something about syria or iran connected to iraq or they are calling out the US  calling them 'responsible for the spread of global terrorism' --- Iran's national security chief, Hassan Rohani.

If the situation were to arise that armed conflict became inevitable, What do you think the chances that Canada would participate? Any other allied nations?
I think it would be important that we contribute in some way,as it would be the second time we would leave our best ally out to dry .. (before anyone critcizes me for being a hypocrite, Id like to state that it is the Bush administration I strongly disapprove of, not the United States.)

Regardless of how safe we think we are here in Canada, terrorists will identify us as easily as Americans, to them there is little difference between us.Our societys are much the same, our culture much the same and we actively participated in Afghanistan and remain committed for a while yet, and with our PM publicly making best friends with Bush all over the news lately, and with russian President Vladmir Putin (where he also vowed canada would fight terrorism more actively, over the subject of the school massacre) Im somewhat surprised we havnt been attacked already =/

What any of that has to do with Syria and Iran is that our allies are actively involved in this part of the world, and it is in our best interests to help out our friends when we can.... after all, the US pays the bills =p

So, alot of rambling later, what do you think could happen between these counties? because I cant see them just quietly deciding to mind their own business and stop rocking the boat anytime soon so to speak.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2005)

This is not the war of the future, this is the war right now. Syria and Iran are formenting unrest and supporting the insurgents in Iraq in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a democratic state in the region. 

Given the ability of the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq to spirit the WMD out of the country prior to the invasion, the United States will either need a "slam dunk" intelligence coup, or something like a nuclear provocation by Iran to begin active hostilities against either country. I wouldn't count out the idea that there may already be small scale activities such as stratigic recce and gently establishing a network of agents as part of the preparation of the battlefield, but we may never see this activity.

I brought this topic up in the WW IV (Global War On Terror) forum, you might like to look there as well: http://army.ca/forums/threads/22129.0.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 Jan 2005)

There are a number of reports that in excess of 1,000,000 Iranians have moved into Iraq prior to the election (Jan 30th). 

"War of right now" is unfortunately bang-on....




Matthew.


----------



## Baloo (3 Jan 2005)

This would definitely be a more difficult war to participate in than Iraq. Politically and physically. Aside from the political problems associated, the Iranians would have the possibility of putting up stiff resistance in many ways that the Iraqis could or would not. They have not been totally reduced in arms, meaning that their forces are formidable, at least on land. Obviously, their air force is lacking, and would most likely be swept from the skies, but there are reports of recent MiG fighters having been sent to that nation. The Pasradan are an official military unit that while is more of a radical group of thugs in many cases, could be much more effective than any insurgency should conflict break out. If the Iranian army would stand and fight in the cities, Coalition forces would have a difficult time of it. The mountains in Iran could be well utilized in a defense, preventing a wholesale advance into the Iranian countryside. On an irregular force perspective, the Ayatollah carries substantial weight with many Muslims in the region, if not the world. He has thus far abstained from calling it, but a jihad on his part could well motivate many more into action. 

Who knows. There could be an uprisiing to aid American forces by reform minded Iranians, but as far as I can tell, Iran would certainly not be a cakewalk, all propaganda aside. Winnable? Definitely. But many more casualties would be taken at the same time.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jan 2005)

What about the millions of Iranians over here who might not be too impressed with their home country being reduced to the status of present day Iraq? Might their at least be the possibility of a transoceanic insurgency?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> What about the millions of Iranians over here who might not be too impressed with their home country being reduced to the status of present day Iraq? Might their at least be the possibility of a transoceanic insurgency?



I agree with the fear.  I think the USA should have its "Marketing Plan" prep'd and in the bag right now just in case.



Matthew.  :-\


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (4 Jan 2005)

So far is sounds like the war with iraqi insurgents could quickly become with war with half of the middle east.... considering the popularity of western nations over there, particularly the states, i wouldnt exactly be shocked to see something like that someday soon on the news.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2005)

Sadly, I think while the US has many good reasons to prosecute a larger war, they know they do not have the resources to do so right now. Even worse, I suspect many elements in the Middle East are ready and willing to attempt provocations in order to expand the war.

Should that happen, I think these nations will be in for a horrible surprise. Once the gloves come off, the United States may well decide to do some stunning "economy of force" measures, including operations specificly designed to knock off or decapitate the leadership abilities of these nations, and depending of the sort of provocation, everything from SF to nuclear weapons may be involved.

Arab and Iranian people living in Canada and the US are an interesting case; they have come here to be free of religious persecution, oppressive state censorship etc. and gain political and economic freedom, yet fail to openly support the society which provides all these advantages. My own though is they should be boycotted by the outside community; why should you and I put bread on their tables if they are not willing to support us? The French have taken a very hard hit in their tourist and wine industries due to their anti-American attitudes, and I think a spontanious reaction of that sort will happen to these Arab and Iranian communities as well. If they clearly understand what has happened and why, their so called leadership will almost certainly get the boot, and support for terrorist organizations and cells may be reduced. (The opposite will happen if they are openly persecuted).


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (4 Jan 2005)

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6492


U.S. warplanes, flying out of bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, flew over Iranian air space, apparently to spy on nuke sites, according to Iranian press reports.

Aftab newspaper reported that the latest U.S. violation to Iran's air space was on Saturday, when a U.S. warplane flew at low altitude over Khorosan province which borders Afghanistan.

Other press reports cited intrusion by F-16 and F-18 fighters over the southwestern province of Khuzestan which borders Iraq. 

Several press reports suggested that those planes were spying on Iran's nuclear sites.

However, the U.S. military didn't comment on the reports. But one official, who asked not to be named said he would not be surprised if those reports were authentic. 

"The circular maneuvering of the two American fighters indicated them as carrying out spying sorties and controlling the borders," said an Iranian official. 

No further details were immediately available.

Last month Iranian army chief, General Mohammad Salimi, said that Iran's army, led by the air force, has been ordered to stand ready to defend the country against any military strike targeting it nuclear sites.

"The air force has been ordered to protect the nuclear sites, using all its power," General Salimi was quoted as saying. 

Also Iranian air force chief, Brig. Karim Qavami, ordered his forces last week to shoot down any aircraft violating the country's airspace. 

"Given that the intrusion of enemy aircraft over Iran's airspace is possible, all fighter jets of the country have been ordered by the army chief to shoot them down in the event of sighting them," he said. 

Washington claims that Iran is covertly trying to develop nuclear weapons, leading to speculation over the possibility of military strikes. 

But Iran has repeatedly denied those claims, asserting that its nuclear program was solely aimed as peaceful purposes like power generation.

In August, five U.S. jets were reported to have entered the Iranian airspace from the southwestern Shalamcheh border and over flew Khorramshahr. 

Some military specialists say that those intrusions are aimed at assessing Iran's anti-aircraft defenses capabilities. 



^^ To somebody who said that the US should be making plans for Iran just in case anyway, it seems/sounds like theyve been doing that all along =p


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2005)

The expanding battlespace is being defined....

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200501100715.asp

Circle Squared
Iran, Iraq, Syria.

Last week, Alhurra â â€ an Arabic-language television station that is funded by our government â â€ broadcast a taped interview with a terrorist named Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, the leader of Jaish Muhammad (Muhammad's Army). He was captured nearly two months ago in Fallujah during the liberation of the city.

Yasseen had been a colonel in Saddam's Army, so he was a fighter of some importance. He told Alhurra that two other former Iraqi military officers belonging to his group were sent "to Iran in April or May, where they met a number of Iranian intelligence officials." He said they also met with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and were provided with money, weapons, "and, as far as I know, even car bombs" for Jaish Muhammad.

Yasseen also said he was told by Saddam himself, after the liberation of Iraq in the spring of 2003, to cross into Syria and meet with a Syrian intelligence officer to ask for money and weapons.

So here we have a high-ranking member of the "insurgency," a textbook case of the sort of Saddam loyalist said to compose the bulk of those fighting against the Coalition. And what does he tell us? He tells us that he has been working closely with Iran and Syria, and that this close working relationship was directed by Saddam. Moreover, his organization, Jaish Muhammad, is an ally of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, himself a longtime resident of Tehran.

In other words, while there are certainly plenty of Saddam loyalists among the terrorists fighting against us, they are receiving support from Damascus and Tehran. Yasseen's testimony is one of the first bits of intelligence from the Fallujah campaign to reach the public. If we had truly investigative journalists out there, they would be all over this story, which is only one of many that came out of Fallujah. About a month ago, a letter from an Army officer who had fought in Fallujah circulated on the net, and, like Yasseen's tape, it helps dispel some of the myths clouding our strategic vision.

"In Fallujah," we learn, "the enemy had a military-type planning system...Some of the fighters were wearing body armor and Kevlar, just like we do. Soldiers took fire from heavy machine guns (.50 cal) and came across the dead bodies of fighters from Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Afghanistan, and so on. No, this was not just a city of pi**ed off Iraqis, mad at the Coalition for forcing Saddam out of power. It was a city full of people from all over the Middle East whose sole mission in life was to kill Americans. Problem for them is that they were in the wrong city in November 2004."

We killed more than a thousand terrorists in Fallujah, and nearly an equal number surrendered, many of whom provided our military with useful information. Presumably Yasseen's information has been exploited before letting the Syrians and Iranians know that he has told us all about them.

Perhaps these revelations will help outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell get on the right side of history before he rejoins civil society. Last September, in an interview with the Washington Times, he said "I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support (for the terrorists in Iraq). How much and how influential their support is, I can't be sure and it's hard to get a good read on it."

Perhaps now he's got a better read. But of course, he chose not to know many things about Iran. He insisted that the Bush administration shut down a channel to a source of information about Iran, even though he knew that the source was reliable, and that information from that source â â€ information concerning Iranian support for anti-American terrorists â â€ had saved American lives in Afghanistan. Had the flow of information continued, we might have had a better picture of our enemies' intentions and capacities. And such a picture might have convinced Powell that Iran was not, as his deputy Richard Armitage put it, "a democracy," but a bloodthirsty tyranny that delights in killing Americans, Iraqis, and its own citizens.

Yet, in his final weeks in office, Secretary Powell has unfortunately continued to chant his mantra, "we are not working for regime change in Iran," as if he were proud of it. He, and his colleagues at State, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, and the CIA, should be ashamed. The mullahs are active supporters of terrorism all over the world, including Iraq, and we cannot expect to win this war so long as they remain in power.

Let's hope that Dr. Rice is paying close attention to the Yasseen confession, and the many others that will help her realize that there is no escape from the regional war in which we are engaged.

Faster, please.

â â€ Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

And where does this leave us? I find it unlikely that with the current strain on the US forces you hear about in the news all over, that they could support the war on two more fronts, taking action against Iran and Syria, Iran having a formidable military force.
If the US decided they needed more allies, I think its quite likely that our current PM would be willing to oblige.Maybe even the russians would help out after that school attack?
What about the English?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

I think it depends on the war the Americans were required or desired to fight.  I think that if it was a conventional border war with the Iranians moving Armoured Divisions in the open, or for that matter N. Koreans, I think the Americans are still well placed to destroy those forces.  They couldn't take on another occupation though.

As to the Brits, while they could probably come up with a mini corps for a short period they can only sustain their current Iraqi obligation and maybe another like it.

The Russians, I frankly don't think they have much to offer these days.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2005)

England and Australia are already committed to the extent they are able. Russian participation would be iffy at best, since a lot of their motivation to be active in that area of the world is tied to their historical drive for warm water ports and the near term desire to cement their hold on the "near abroad" rather than crushing terrorists and their supporting regimes.

Frankly, what you see with the coallition of the willing is probably the available forces for long term operations. Each nation has more troops, but to commit them is to start commiting the strategic reserve, something of a last resort. Since it will take five or more years to get the "5000" Canadian troops promised in the last election, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the call-up.

Some predictions: a series of offensives to quell the fighting in the Tikrit triangle region in the short term, followed by a realignment of coallition forces to better operate in the LIC environment. The US in particular will draw back the heavy forces from the populated regions of Iraq, and prepare plans to take out Syria or Iran if required, using economy of force and lightning war tactics. The biggest headache for American planners will be reconstituting the post war societies of Iran and Syria, which will call for investments of resources and manpower on at least the same scale as Iraq for each nation for a period of decades....This is probably the show stopper right now.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jan 2005)

Do you really think the Americans would crush the Iranians AND the Syrians as easily as they did the Iraqi armies? Theres no question to me that the States would eventually beat them, but it would probobly take considerably longer than a few months.Also, its been this difficult in attempting to control Iraq, how difficult would it be with two more countries on top of that =/.... on the other hand, hitting the insurgency where it actually comes from might make it alot easier to pacify them all  ???


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2005)

I am going to suggest the United States can militarialy defeat Syria and Iran, either simultaniously or sequentially, IF SUFFICIENT REASON EXISTS. The spiriting away of Iraq'a WMD program in the weeks leading up to the war means the US Intelligence organs will have to have an iron clad case against Syria and/or Iran in order for the administration to be able to go forward, or a very clear provocation will have to be made.

Military action will be at a speed and scale which will be shocking to us (who have the most knowledge and experience of American operations) for the purpose of rapidly decapitating the Syrian and Iranian command and control networks, isolating the military formations through severing of road,rail and air links, and generally crushing any dual purpose infrastructure. Remaining military formations will be isolated and can be destroyed as bite sized pieces should that be considered nessesary. 

The big problem is what to do with these countries after they have taken these "head shots". The proper thing to do would be to move in, stabilize the country, "De Nazify" the political establishment and begin the process of transforming the political culture, but this is where the Americans do not have the troop strength. Leaving the countries alone after the "head-shot" isn't a good option either, since something even worse could grow out of the chaos.



> other hand, hitting the insurgency where it actually comes from might make it alot easier to pacify them all


 . 

This is a very calculated risk, and I am not sure if the starting conditions are right for this.....yet.


----------



## goodform (10 Jan 2005)

I'll admit I just skimmed over the posts, but I had one thing in mind, China. What is their stance on US policy in the middle East? They've been buying up US Bonds and if the US does something that China doesn't like, it's quite possible they could up and sell them...? Not good for the US, they need money before they can even think of all the tactical and strategic nightmares.


----------



## Torlyn (10 Jan 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> Do you really think the Americans would crush the Iranians AND the Syrians as easily as they did the Iraqi armies?



I think we might be forgetting something...  At the moment, Syria and Iran are benefiting economically from unrest in Iraq.  Oil prices being what they are, war-time consumption being what it is, Iran is doing a hell of a job making up the lost BBL/day that a stable Iraq would otherwise be producing.  I realize that there are more issues than this, but I don't think we should ignore the economics of the region.

My 1.5 cents.  

T


----------



## dutchie (10 Jan 2005)

My 2 cents:

1- The US will never again use nuclear weapons first. Full stop.
2- The US are too overextended to defeat either Syria or Iran with their current troop, finaincial and logistical commitment to Iraq. That could change in a year or two, but I think an invasion is off the table right now.
3- Even when(if) the US is capable of defeating either Syria or Iran, it would be extremely unpopular domestically. Yes, Americans rally behind the President during wartime, and there is support for victory in Iraq, but to start a whole new war (or front, if you want) would garner support from only the most hardline right-wingers and the most hawkish Yanks....just a guess, I'd say 20-25% of the population.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Reading through the posts and i saw a continued theme..caution and common sense two things that DUBYA tends to lack.  

I think it is quite possible he could be provoked into making the first move and Caesar you are right they would not use the nuc first but they may use small tactical ones if WMD are used on them.

I can't remember who mentioned China but good point, not a real player on the world stage as of yet with force projection but they could really muss up the American economy if they wanted to.  But that would be Tit for Tat as the USA holds alot of Asian trading and could screw with that just as easily.

Real backers for this would have to come from NATO such as Germany and France i know i said the F word.

I doubt it would happen though.  

France makes so much money from its ams sales to that region that it loves the instability it causes and would not want the USA to sort it out costing it billions of dollars.

Russia not much in the way of troop strength or political will to back them.

Syria and Iran have capable paper armies remember Gulf war Part 1 Iraq was the third largest army in the world had lots of front line equipment and training and experience and moral and they were utterly crushed gutted whatever you wish to use.

The American military is a very lethal weapon and their home based propaganda machine can turn those two nations into the evil ones in no time flat.

Not to say i want this to happen. But it does look extremely possible..... scary isn't it.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

Yes, I agree with the above post in that a "Two-Front War" would be disastrous...Even more so that the areas of operation are somewhat unhospitible to us westerners (remember Hitler and Russsia?)

another problem with the middle east is that western intelligence agencies traditionally do not have much of a presence there...Why this is i don't know but even going back to the Delta fiasco at Desert One ther was almost no western presence on the ground in Iran to speak of. These days with the move by most western int agencies to rely on other types of int. (Im Int, sig int ect ect) and away from human assets (humint) the situation could be al-together worse!

Last point-We also often forget that the Middle East now has very modern military hardware. Case in point-Iran has the F14 Tomcat in its airforce inventoy!

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Last point-We also often forget that the Middle East now has very modern military hardware. Case in point-Iran has the F14 Tomcat in its airforce inventoy!  \


Yea but what model a i beileve and really how many can still fly 3 maybe 5 of them.  It has been a long time since they were friendly with the West.

But true a two front war not a good option for any army in any conditions ask Germany what it was like.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Last point-We also often forget that the Middle East now has very modern military hardware. Case in point-Iran has the F14 Tomcat in its airforce inventoy!   \
> 
> 
> Yea but what model a i bbelieveand really how many can still fly 3 maybe 5 of them.   It has been a long time since they were friendly with the West.



Too true...However the French (wonderful bunch) have been supplying them for some time now with arms. Now I have no current info on the subject so this is all a guess on my part but, they could have bought planes from them as well as air defense and other goodies.

The US has lots of modern stuff, I agree, but as you (and I ) mentioned, a two-front war is not a good idea so if any action were to take place it would have to be "shortdrop-sudden stop" types and not a prolonged effort.

Slim's .02 bits


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2005)

Actually there is one player that we may not be valuing sufficiently.  India.

If India can be convinced to come off the sidelines and supply man-power, as it used to do for the Brits in the east, as it did in Iraq, Ethiopia, Egypt you name it, then that could change the picture somewhat.

US striking power and delivery, Indian ground forces to supplement security, ABCA and New Europe to supply legitimacy along with the rest of the current version of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.

Indian and Pakistani forces on their own would supply great moral authority to any venture.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

I had heard that there was a thawing of sorts in relations between the two countries (India and Pakistan) Does anyone know anything about this and if it were possible for them to deploy as a force to the middle east in any capacity?

Slim


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2005)

Indian manpower would be quite a wild card in this "what-if" scenario, and certainly solve the "follow-up" problem of any expanded American actions in the Middle East. What sort of incentives India would need to come aboard is an interesting question.

Two points I must reiterate:

1. The United States may not be able to mount a conventional invasion against Syria or Iran, but could still do an effective "head-shot" and put those nations out of commission if it is deemed nessesary. The risk is the chaotic conditions following such a move would throw almost any sort of military, political or economic strategy out the window.

2. Because of the intelligence fiasco involving pre war Iraq, the administration will not take action unless it can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Either captured Syrian or Iranian officers leading anti-American fighters (or something equally clear-cut), or a provocation by one of these nations, most probably Iran, and most certainly if it involved the use or threat of nuclear weapons against American forces or the US Homeland.

Unless those conditions can be met, only the intelligence preparation of the battlefield and possibly "deep black" operations will be the limit to American activity.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

Agree with you Art.

That is why I suggested a border war with conventional arms.  If the Americans could get Iran or Syria to assault into Iraq, or even mobilize on the borders to threaten Iraq then they would have the moral authority to "write-down" either army and definitely have that capability in reserve.  They might even as you suggest be able to take out the leadership by conventional and covert means.

What they couldn't do, is occupy and stabilize either country afterwards, at least not on their on.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

Good note kirkhill 

i total forgot about India, and Pakistan.

Getting them on board would greatly increase the US's chances of winning even if they were just Cannon fodder.  They could field a huge army.  Not sure on all their equipment though, i am sure some of the front line stuff must be descent.

But the real diddy would be getting the American public on side this time. Even with CONCRETE prove there would still be the sceptics. But if they were able to have Iran or Syria attack first be through the US or even Israel. ( A player yet to be named )  And then what about having Turkey come donw on Iran or Syria the turks have no love for either of those two nations.  This would eliminate a two front war for the Americans and cause it on either of the other two.  Even if they united, and we were able to through Pakistan and India into the mix that would still spell disaster for the axis as we shall call them.

Another player yet to be named is North Korea. Could they move there forces no but they could attack the south at the same time as Syria and Iran attacking Iraq.  

man this sounds like a TC novel jeez call in Jack Ryan to save the day.

MOO


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2005)

The key question(s) to ask are why would these nations jump into the fray?

Turkey was a non player in OIF for reasons of internal politics, and they also have issues with the northern "Kurdish" portions of Iraq. India and Pakistan have few reasons to offer up troops, especially as "cannon fodder", and I would also add Pakistan greatly aided the Taliban getting set up in the first place (or at least Pakistan's Intelligence agencies), which would make their help somewhat suspect at best.

There is always the thought that North Korea or China might use the situation in SW Asia as distraction to launch initiatives of their own, but there are lots of local players in SE Asia who would get involved one way or the other. This would be an excellent time for people everywhere to "get off the pot" as the bigger players attempt to make their moves, and we will see who the real "allies" are.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

What motivates most people to do any thing MONEY    either through direct payment debt relieve or future venture.

I did not meant that they would be used for Cannon Fodder but if they do the ground assault that is likely what they would become.   Voluntary or Not.   

Turkey had a problem if the Kurds got to have there own state.   That would have to be a bargining chip the Americans would use to get them on their side if it came down to it.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2005)

IF, and it is a mighty big IF, If India decided to participate, either out of altruism, pride, bribery, response to a sense of regional insecurity or whatever, I don't honestly think they would be needed as "Cannon Fodder".  Nor would the probably wish to participate on those grounds.  They have some platforms that could contribute to the early stages, apparently some of their Mig29 jockeys gave some American F15 types a run for their money recently. However I was thinking more along the lines of them supplying the a good portion of the stabilization forces after the initial assault is over.

I believe the Americans are quite capable of destroying a conventional Army on their own.  What they need help with is security and policing.  Establishing presence in areas that "run outside the writ of law".


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jan 2005)

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964

Syria being a US target shouldnt be a surprise considering its lack of effort in curbing the flow of jihadists into Iraq. In fact their intelligence support of the Sunni's is an open secret. There never will be security in Iraq as long as this continues. I suspect any strikes will be graduated. An initial series of strikes [by air] then a pause to see if the Syrian's crack down. If they dont then another level of strikes.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2005)

At very least it would make it difficult for Jihadists to get their paperwork stamped at the border if the local constabulary is swapping shots with an Abrams.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (12 Jan 2005)

i don't think the Syrians could afford to swap to many shots with an Abrams.  Besides an Apache can really ruin your day  ;D.  

hill 

I see your point and agree, Cannon Fodder was the wrong term.  

they would definetly work well in that role.  

But i don't think it would ever get through the UN damm French and the arms trade.


----------



## hammond (12 Jan 2005)

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6734



> Hard liners in the Bush Administration are considering launching strikes against Syria's borders with Iraq in an effort to beef up security ahead of Iraq's January elections, U.S. administration officials said.
> 
> The sources also said that Iraq's Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is demanding some form of military actions against Syria.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (12 Jan 2005)

Damascus and Tehran need to be put out of business.I bet the Bush Administration is looking to put together an ironclad case against them that the public cannot ignore.


----------



## dutchie (12 Jan 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> I bet the Bush Administration is looking to put together an ironclad case against them that the public cannot ignore.



Let's hope the standard is raised a snitch this time around....

They (IMHO) have done themselves a huge disservice. They will need to do way more to exhaust the diplomatic avenues available to them this time around to prevent dissent domestically and abroad. Had they done this with Iraq, the amount of work & patience required with Syria/Iran would have been less. 

A lot of people are a hyper-sensitive to 'premature US military action', both domestically and internationally.


----------



## joaquim (12 Jan 2005)

Again, in muslim jihad theory, national borders are irrelevant because they have been created by men (in the middle east, by French and Brits in the 1940's). The purpose of jihad is victory of Dar al-Islam (the muslim world) over Dar al-Harb (the whole of the unbelievers). Therefore, there are only two "dar" (houses) in the world, and they will always be at war.

Back to Syria, more details from the (strangely well informed) DEBKAfile site (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964): 


> DEBKAfile's Military and US sources reveal: Bush has ordered US Iraq commander Gen. Casey to prepare February attack on Syria. Assad sends Syria's chief of staff Gen. Habib to establish command post on Iraqi border. Israel braces for Hizballah backlash. Read more in DEBKAfile Special Military Report Updating DEBKA-Net-Weekly 188 â â€œ below


----------



## Ty (12 Jan 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Arab and Iranian people living in Canada and the US are an interesting case; they have come here to be free of religious persecution, oppressive state censorship etc. and gain political and economic freedom, yet fail to openly support the society which provides all these advantages. My own though is they should be boycotted by the outside community; why should you and I put bread on their tables if they are not willing to support us? The French



Care to expand on that?  I'm unsure if I interpreted you correctly (and hope that I haven't), but are you suggesting that Arab and Persian Canadians receive special "economic" treatment because of their political views?


----------



## dutchie (12 Jan 2005)

joaquim said:
			
		

> Again, in muslim jihad theory, national borders are irrelevant because they have been created by men



They may be irrelavant to them, but they are not irrelavant to the rest of the world, just as human rights are irrelavant to Jihadis (my new term - thanks majoor), and they are not irrelavant to us. 

Thus, we must respect true soveriegn nations, as well as human rights. I have always maintained, however, that in this new style of conflict, we have to look at 'threats' rather than 'nations'. For instance, you can't engage militarily a state, when it is not the state that is the real problem. By invading Syria, or Iran for that matter, because of support (whether by mere political ways or militarily), you only confirm their belief that the 'Western Infidel' is bent on 'irradicating Islam' and any other opposition to the US policy/plan for the Middle East. IF, howver, one was to elliminate specific targets within those nations that are clearly supplying arms to combatants in Iraq, and left all else alone, then that is completely different. Better still, hit the supplies once they enter Iraq.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (12 Jan 2005)

TA said:
			
		

> Care to expand on that?   I'm unsure if I interpreted you correctly (and hope that I haven't), but are you suggesting that Arab and Persian Canadians receive special "economic" treatment because of their political views?



I think the majoor menat that they get the support of the Canadian people because we buy thier goods and use thier services.  I think that is the boycot that is meant there.  

Borders have never been an issue for those fighting a religious war.  I think the US should be very careful in any endever to take on Syria or Iran, but i also agree you have to stop the source or the problem will continue.  If the evidece can prove ( i mean really prove) as opposed to show that they are involved or responsible then the selling points on the case went up.

Again though having it go through the UN will  never fly FRENCH arms sales are to much to lose for stability in that region.

MOO


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2005)

> IF, however, one was to elliminate specific targets within those nations that are clearly supplying arms to combatants in Iraq, and left all else alone, then that is completely different.



Caesar, isn't that a distinction without a difference?  In order to eliminate specific targets within Syria, without Syria's co-operation, don't you have to cross Syria's borders, violate Syria's sovereignty and thus commit an act of war against Syria?

My understanding of your logic would suggest that you believe that Henry Kissinger was right to promote strikes into Cambodia and Laos to eliminate Anti-Vietnamese elements there.  Is that right?

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2005)

The logic of this conflict is beginning to resemble the tangles of the 30 years war.

Jihadis are using violence to overthrow regimes in the Middle East in order to establish a new Caliphate.

Syria is sponsoring Jihadis to prevent a democratic Iraq from establishhing itself, since freedom is contagious and will destabilize the Ba'athist dictatorship's grip on Syria.

Iran is sponsoring the Jihadis in order to strike a blow at the "Great Satan", and establish a theocracy of their design in Iraq

The United States and the coallition is fighting the Jihadis to establish a democratic Iraq, theorizing this will provide a potent counterforce to the attractions of the "Caliphate", reducing the appeal of the Jihadis. The second order effects will be to destabilize unfriendly states such as Iran. A third order effect would be to reduce the flow of arms to the region, reducing foreign trade to unfriendly states like China and North Korea (and quasi-friendly states like France).

As for the home front, we seem afraid to speak the simple truth that Islamic leaders here in Canada, the United States and the West do not speak openly and forcefully against the Jihadis, either being silent, or resorting to the "yes, but" arguments. If and when Al Qadea sleeper cells emerge in North America, which community do you think they found the shelter and resources in? If the leadership is not willing to denounce them in word and deed, do you really belive ordinary people will take action? I am not trying to be racist or inflammetory here, and some smart HUMINT and CIMIC type work will probably pay huge dividends rather than mass internments or other heavy handed actions.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2005)

From Stratagypage

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM


> IRAQ: The Only Battles That Count
> 
> Can the anti-government forces in Iraq win? Some pundits think so. But do you really think the Shia and Kurds will allow Saddam's thugs to bully their way back into power? The Kurds and Shia Arabs have 80 percent of the population, control of the oil, and American troops to back up their efforts. Iraqis indicate, to anyone who will listen, that they have no intention of folding under Baath pressure, and a growing desire to come down hard on the Sunnis who support the violence. The Kurds and Shia have names, because Saddam's thugs didn't wear masks when they ran things for three decades. Guess who is going to lose? But that thought is what is driving the resistance. The Baath Party thugs know what they will have to face eventually, if they don't regain control of Iraq.
> 
> The Baath and al Qaeda campaign against the police and government officials results in spectacular and newsworthy attacks each day. But there are still 7,000 new police and National Guard undergoing training, and another 25,000 waiting to start their training. The attacks are concentrated in two provinces; Anbar (where Fallujah is) and Nineveh (where Mosul is). Because the attacks are killing mostly Iraqis, the attackers are not very popular, even among Sunni Arabs. The police are getting more tips about anti-government activity. This includes information about where roadside bombs are planted, or where gunmen are hiding out. Although the Arab media makes a big deal about how impossible it will be to run the elections, the Iraqi people don't think so.



Read the whole thing. I've found StrategyPage to be pretty reliable, and I certainly hope they're right about this.


----------



## dutchie (13 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Caesar, isn't that a distinction without a difference?   In order to eliminate specific targets within Syria, without Syria's co-operation, don't you have to cross Syria's borders, violate Syria's sovereignty and thus commit an act of war against Syria?
> 
> My understanding of your logic would suggest that you believe that Henry Kissinger was right to promote strikes into Cambodia and Laos to eliminate Anti-Vietnamese elements there.   Is that right?
> 
> Cheers.



For the purposes of explanation, I will compare two US military actions in the Middle East:

1- The invasion/occupation of Iraq (you'll notice I didn't refer to it as the conquer of Iraq - they haven't achieved that yet)

2- The air strike against Libya in the 80's.

One invloved the stiking of a specific target by the US Air Force, temporarily violating the sovereignty of Libya. This action was proportional to the threat.

The other involved the ground invasion and decimation of conventional forces of Iraq, and subsequent occupation, indefinately violating their sovereignty. This action was not proportional to the threat.

Huge difference.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (13 Jan 2005)

For the purposes of explanation, I will compare two US military actions in the Middle East:

1- The invasion/occupation of Iraq (you'll notice I didn't refer to it as the conquer of Iraq - they haven't achieved that yet)

2- The air strike against Libya in the 80's.

One invloved the stiking of a specific target by the US Air Force, temporarily violating the sovereignty of Libya. This action was proportional to the threat.

The other involved the ground invasion and decimation of conventional forces of Iraq, and subsequent occupation, indefinately violating their sovereignty. This action was not proportional to the threat.

But still technically acts of war against a sovereign nation.

Not to say that clamping down on these two might not make the world a safer place, they still are acts of war.

If it can be proven that these nations are supporting the insurjants would that to not constitute an act of war against the US or the soon to be elected government of Iraq?

As for ironclad proof, that would be interesting to see how they pull that out.

As for the anti-government forces in Iraq winning, I don't see that as real visable unless the americans abandon the kurds and the Shia again like after the 1st gulf war.  An unreal vision within the next three years anyway..

MOO


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jan 2005)

If Libya had had the ability to significantly and effectively "return fire" against a useful US target might that have changed the dynamic and the response resulting in an escalation?

Does Syria have a significant US target that it can reach and on which it can inflict damage?  Are US forces in Iraq concentrated and in a posture suitable to withstand a strike at short notice or are they dispersed?  What is the drive time from the Syrian Border to Fallujah?


----------



## dutchie (13 Jan 2005)

If Libya had had the ability to significantly and effectively "return fire" against a useful US target might that have changed the dynamic and the response resulting in an escalation?

Are you referring to Iraq here? The US Gov has announced today that the search for WMD is over, and they admit they have come up empty-handed. So Iraq really didn't have the ability to strike the US, now did they?

Does Syria have a significant US target that it can reach and on which it can inflict damage?

Is there strong, physical evidence that they are actually preparing an attack? No, only conjecture and speculation. I bet that Syria would love to conduct a successfull attack on US forces, but desire is not reason to launch a pre-emptive attack.

What is the drive time from the Syrian Border to Fallujah?

What you should be asking is how many feet inside Iraq would Syrian forces get during an attack before being vaporized by US forces. My guess is around 50-100 feet, 200 feet if they dig a tunnel first.

In short, Iran and Syria are nations that the US and the rest of the West should watch, but neither are stupid enough to launch an attack against the US. They may hate the US/West, they may cheer everytime a US serviceman is killed by an Iraqi insurgent, they may pray for the annihilation of the West and Israel, but that is not sufficient cause for the invasion of their sovereign state. It is cause for concern, buy not (military) action.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2005)

Syria and Iran are doing everything in their power to aid the Jihadis, and the Jihadis have global reach (Mogadishu, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nairobi, New York, Bali, Madrid).  It speaks volumes about the coalitions abilities that these sort of attacks are not happening more frequently.

The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense. There was no question Lybia was sponsoring terrorism in the 1980s, and after the United States demonstrated that action could be taken by bombing Tripoli, the Lybian support for terrorists tapered off quite quickly. Once the Americans showed their fangs again in OIF, Lybia suddenly came clean about their WMD program, and proceeded to dismantle it. Coincidence? Perhaps.

The evidence for Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq are circumstantial, but quite strong. Some pieces are even posted on this thread, from the debrief of captured Jihadis to the discovery of a GPS receiver in Fallujia with the first way-point in Syria. I wonder how much evidence it will take to trigger preemtive actions, but perhaps this won't be required; coalition forces may simply execute the doctrine of "hot persuit" against retreating Jihadis and do the deed that way.


----------



## onecat (14 Jan 2005)

posted by a_major

"The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense"

Your reply was interesting, does that not mean that Britian has the right to bomb the US, because though out the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's it took a blind eye to support and fund for the IRA, who were activity bombing British targets. Or does Sri lanka have the right to attack Canada because of questional Liberal ( aka gov't) support for Tamils Tigers and its known terrorist fund raising parties.


----------



## Slim (14 Jan 2005)

> and the Jihadis have global reach



You forgot Scarborough (GTA)


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> posted by a_major
> 
> "The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense"
> 
> *Your reply was interesting, does that not mean that Britian has the right to bomb the US, because though out the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's it took a blind eye to support and fund for the IRA, who were activity bombing British targets. Or does Sri lanka have the right to attack Canada because of questional Liberal ( aka gov't) support for Tamils Tigers and its known terrorist fund raising parties.*



Acting in self defense can include military actions, and given the size and strength of the Jihadi assaults, this was the correct response. The UK certainly worked through diplomatic channels in an attempt to stop NORAID and other terrorist support organizations, and I would not be surprised if files opened 30 years from now revealed British Intelligence contemplating or even doing "direct action" against players in the US. I don't think Siri Lanka has the reach to bomb Canada, but then again, we don't have a means to defend ourselves either. As an aside, there was a period in the 1980s where Indian Intelligence Agencies were actually having battles with Sikh separatists on Canadian soil (culminating with the "Air India" bombing in 1985 or so), because we were doing little or nothing to discourage the separatists from planning or supporting violent acts and actors on the Indian sub-continent.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (14 Jan 2005)

Caesar

The Law of Pyhsics would apply to any Iranian or Syrain action, which would be a re-action.  How many of the stratgegic targets in those two nations are withing the striking distance of the US...... oh yea all of them.  So i have to agree they may just watch this one from the VP box and give money and weapons to those who want to fight it out.  Do i think a direct attack is likely, not by those nations to start it off. 

a_majoor 

While i don't think the fact that the attacks happen more frequently has anything more to do with the colation forces then with your average police department.  I do agree that they have the ability to strike anywhere.  

Sovereignty aside if a nation supports another in its war making effort that to would be considered an act of war although unoffically declared.  The Land Lease program of US and UK in WWII bases for Ships and the such is an example of that.  A good example of how to support a war without the acutally decleration of one. 


Now my rant

Now if the Americans strike first i have a question or two.  

1.    How many sleeper cells do you think Iran or Syria have in the North America?

2.   What do you think there targets would be? 

Do you think that the US has overlooked this problem i don't that is why they may be waiting to have concrete proof.  Then they could raise the alert level to red (martial law basically) and then hammer away at Syria and/or Iran.   How flag wavey do you think they would be then.  Americans do it better then any other nation when they rally around the flag.  I can almost see it coming.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (14 Jan 2005)

Im going to have to agree with you on that one Oz... the americans have a nack for putting together a large sense of patriotism when someone or something threatens them.... but they are very very patriotic in general.... im a little jealous of them actually, as it isnt quite the same in canada (unfortunately).

Ive come to my own personal conclusion that taking military actions against Iran and Syria ( be it pre-emptive strikes or full blow war) is not a question of if but when.


----------



## dutchie (14 Jan 2005)

I don't have a problem with US military action in Syria or Iran (I am a soldier afterall), as long as it's a last resort and in response to a real threat. That threat may very well come about, but I don't think it has as of yet......at least not a big enough threat. Syrians and Iranians cominig to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters is not reason enough. Syrian/Iranian GOVERNMENT forces coming to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters likely would justify some action, but not invasion and total occupation of those nations as well.

Re:US patriotism. Yeah, it is kind of admirable. However, I think that if they were to invade another Middle East nation, there would be revolt more intense than in the late 60's early 70's during Vietnam. We all know what impact THAT movement had on the war effort and the morale of the nation.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Syrians and Iranians coming to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters is not reason enough. Syrian/Iranian GOVERNMENT forces coming to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters likely would justify some action, but not invasion and total occupation of those nations as well.



Syrian and Iranian support for the Jihadis is not a spontaneous outpouring of private donations of money and manpower like the US response to the Tsunami. Syria is a Ba'athist dictatorship and Iran is a Theocratic state (the Islamic Republic of Iran), where people's freedoms and actions are constrained to a degree unknown here in the west. The Jihadis are "resisting" the establishment of a free Iraq, especially since the vast majority of the Iraqi voters will not be very keen on seeing another Ba'ath party dictatorship or some new theocracy imposed on them from outside. The Syrian and Iranian governments are supporting the Jihadis to further their own ambitions and ends.

The American quandary is not so much identifying the "perps", rather devising an effective and relatively low cost means to deal with the threat. The Iraqi people will probably back their new government's efforts to oust the Jihadis and foreign interlopers, although how effective they will be in doing so remains to be seen. If they are reasonably effective, the Americans and the coallition can take a lower profile, re orientating their force posture to guard Iraq's external borders until the Iraqi army clears the Jihadis and is capable of taking over that task. 

Will the US remain after that? There are the questions of where the Iraqi WMD was spirited away to, and Iranian nuclear ambitions, as well as ongoing Syrian and Iranian support for Jihadis who will now be forced to operate in other regions of the world. Iraq is an excellent regional staging point for SW Asia and even Africa, and the Iraqi government may like the economic benefits of having US base infrastructure and soldiers stationed there, (although the bases will be in out of the way locations, something like Pet  ). American presence "up close and personal" may certainly make Syria and Iran behave much more cautiously in the future.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jan 2005)

The Syrian's funded by Iran are enabling the insurgency. Former Iraqi Baathists are in Syria. The US has asked for the return of 55 of these thugs to no avail. The Syrians are buying the Kornet ATM which can destroy an Abram's MBT. The Russians are about to sell surface to air missiles to Syria so the clock is ticking. Expect to see after the elections the new Iraqi leadership will authorize Gen Casey to 
take action against Syria. This action will start out with limited objectives but could escalate into a punishing campaign against the Syrian's.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> posted by a_major
> 
> "The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense"
> 
> Your reply was interesting, does that not mean that Britian has the right to bomb the US, because though out the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's it took a blind eye to support and fund for the IRA, who were activity bombing British targets. Or does Sri lanka have the right to attack Canada because of questional Liberal ( aka gov't) support for Tamils Tigers and its known terrorist fund raising parties.



Not bomb, no ... but Britain could have and *should have* assassinated a fairly large handful of Irish-American _leaders_ ... Sri Lanka might, if it can manage it, do away with some Tamil community _leaders_ in Canada, too, for that matter.   The only sin is to be found out.

Someone ... any responsible nation which believes in a _human security_ agenda - should send special forces troops to kill Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe ... but we, Canadians, don't really care much about the _human security_ of poor black folks unless there is really disturbing TV coverage and then our attention span is pretty short â â€œ starving Sudanese and oppressed Zimbabweans cannot compare with Brad and Jenna or Hillary Duff.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2005)

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050116/2005-01-16T173311Z_01_N16248289_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-USA-NEWYORKER-DC.html


> Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran
> 
> Jan 16, 12:33 PM (ET)
> 
> ...



Hersh is not the most reliable journalist (he "broke" the Abu Ghraib prison story months after the Pentagon announced the discovery of prisoner abuse, for example), but the underlying suppositions are probably correct. Black operations against Iranian nuclear facilities will certainly buy time so long as they are: a, effective, and; b, deniable. Staging "industreal accidents" here and there might actually do the trick in defanging Iranian nuclear ambitions, and certainly reduce the Mullah's range of options in the long term.


----------



## Ali_Khl (17 Jan 2005)

Hi Guys,

I just stumbled here by chance, in fact searching for pictures of the IRIAF F14 Tomcats. I thought I would post my 2 cents on the matter here. 

Firstly, although many outsiders believe the opposite, Iran currently operates quite a few more than '3 or 5' F14A Tomcats, with a fairly accurate number at 60 in Inventory, with the number currently in flight not too far off from that figure. This is due to Iran fairly rapidly moving onto self-sufficeny in terms of the Military items that were sold to the nation in the Shah's time, prior to 1979. These are very much fully operational birds here, not deteriorating or without supplies as many outside sources claim (ie. places like Cia.org, and such) - some 90% of the fuselage is currently produced domestically, with the parts excluded the fairly durable but hard to manufacture Titanium structural body components. Together with this the Armed Guard devision also flies a fleet of about 35 SU25 jets, as well as the Airforce also running the Mig 29 (including the nice looking UB) force consisting of some 30-35 planes or so, as well as the fleet of F4 Phantoms and F5Es that were sold by the US previously. Oh, and there are also some 25 or so Mirage F1s, but I will not go into those now.   For further information on the 'AliCats'      do visit the ACIG Forums or IIAF (Iran Imperial Air Force) forums, with the former discussing about the current IRIAF fleet despite its name being related to the previous Air Force under the Shah. Tom Cooper of ACIG is a very knoweldgable expert on Middle East Military affairs and he has written two books on both the F14 and F4s of Iran, as well as some very informative articles that are definetly worth a read if the above sounds interesting.

Iranian domestic industries also currently manufacture a full set of set parts for at least some 100 operational AH1J Helicopters under the name of HESA, with various upgrades already undertaken, including updated display units, radar and surface to ground capabilities of up to 4km or so. It in fact looks like quite an interesting upgrade program, with the canopy changed too - further pictures can be found through google searches of the aformentioned sites. 

There are also quite a few more domestic Military industry developments, including the creation of a localy designed supersonic fighter, the Shafagh, although this is at supposed prototype and testing stage. I wont bore you with any more, but these are just hints that Iran is not quite the incapable Iraq resistance that the United States defeated in their campaign.

Without doubt, however, the United States is the superior force in terms of Military might, but with a young population of over 75 million, some very mountanous and difficult terrain (being much larger than Iraq included) i feel that a campaign against Iran wouldent be something beneficial to both the United State's security, finiancial deficit and domestic support as well as the Middle East's worsening instability. Nationalism ranks very high with Iranians so i feel that an attack, even a limited one on the Nuclear Instalations, would do more worse than good as I am certain it will arouse feelings against the United States and prohibit social change furthermore, especially so with the persisting campaign in our neighbors Iraq. 

Cheers,

Ali Khalili


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2005)

Ali, welcome to Army.ca. Your information about the Iranian Air Force was quite interesting

Please don't think that we feel armed conflict is a desirable thing, but the point of this thread is to debate what is currently happening in that region, what "may" happen and the possible results of various actions. The governments of both Iran and Syria have decided to take certain actions, ranging from sheltering elements of the Iraqi Ba'ath party, sheltering Al Qaeda members, supporting the "Jihadi" fighters who are wreaking so much mayhem against Iraqi civilians and Coallition troops, possibly hiding Iraq's WMD stocks and working to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States and the coallition needs to develop prudent responses to these actions, and military action, while not desirable, may be the only workable solution. If the only desire was to forment war, there would have been military action a long time ago (OIF follows ten years of patrolling the "no fly zones", maintaining economic sanctions and attempting to identify and dismantle the Ba'athist WMD program).


----------



## Wizard of OZ (17 Jan 2005)

Ali_Khl said:
			
		

> Hi Guys,
> 
> Firstly, although many outsiders believe the opposite, Iran currently operates quite a few more than '3 or 5' F14A Tomcats, with a fairly accurate number at 60 in Inventory, with the number currently in flight not too far off from that figure. This is due to Iran fairly rapidly moving onto self-sufficeny in terms of the Military items that were sold to the nation in the Shah's time, prior to 1979. These are very much fully operational birds here, not deteriorating or without supplies as many outside sources claim (ie. places like Cia.org, and such) - some 90% of the fuselage is currently produced domestically, with the parts excluded the fairly durable but hard to manufacture Titanium structural body components. Together with this the Armed Guard devision also flies a fleet of about 35 SU25 jets, as well as the Airforce also running the Mig 29 (including the nice looking UB) force consisting of some 30-35 planes or so, as well as the fleet of F4 Phantoms and F5Es that were sold by the US previously. Oh, and there are also some 25 or so Mirage F1s, but I will not go into those now.  For further information on the 'AliCats'    do visit the ACIG Forums or IIAF (Iran Imperial Air Force) forums, with the former discussing about the current IRIAF fleet despite its name being related to the previous Air Force under the Shah. Tom Cooper of ACIG is a very knoweldgable expert on Middle East Military affairs and he has written two books on both the F14 and F4s of Iran, as well as some very informative articles that are definetly worth a read if the above sounds interesting.
> 
> ...




Ali we do not question the size of Irans army only its capability against a western superpower.  But i think the big questions is why would it come to this.  If it was proven like a_majoor pointed out that Iran or even Syria was sheltering, hidding, arming, or paying for insurgents and sponsering their campagin to disrupt Iraq and kill the citizens then a toll must be paid.

If it can be proven (by this i mean more then just an intellegence report) that Senior Iraqi Baathists are in Syria or Iran and have the WMD and are helping with either nation to develop arms to attack the coalition then paying the piper should not be unexpected.  

You are right no campagin would be an easy or a chosen one without futher support such as India or Pakistan.  But If it came down to it you would prob see two months of air war and then a ground assault.  As Intellegence was gathered in the Mounatins such as Special Ops teams being deployed throught the areas on shearch and destroy missions.

my thought only

I do hope it does not come down to that but with Russia now revertaing back to the old USSR ways of doing things. Supplying arms to the middle east admist a crisis with the west.  Putin solidifying his power by fixing elections or eliminating oponents. I think we in the West should prepare ourselfs for an uncomfortable 5 to 6 yrs to come.


----------



## CH1 (17 Jan 2005)

All very good points.  Pacification worked as well in Iraq as it did in SE Asia.  The part that bothers me as the US forces are ground down, is the US still posses the neutron bomb.  This leaves infrastructure and little else.  I am concerned that if this skirmish escapes the current borders, the US will resort to using it.  It is my opinion that in about 20 years that the capability for the states to maintain military presence is going to diminish, with rogue states pulling up on nuclear power.  There is a lot of sabre rattling coming from different corners of N Africa & Asian republics on this matter.  I do not think the US wants or can afford another Vietnam.  Remember also Afghanistan was Russia's albatross.  Lately Putin has been sliding back to old ways.  Remember what he used to do for a living.  He would love to see the 'Stan's all back in the fold which probably is a short trip under the right circumstances.


----------



## dutchie (17 Jan 2005)

CH1 said:
			
		

> The part that bothers me as the US forces are ground down, is the US still posses the neutron bomb.   This leaves infrastructure and little else.   I am concerned that if this skirmish escapes the current borders, the US will resort to using it.



The US will never, ever, use nuclear weapons first. 

Again.


----------



## Ali_Khl (18 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> [/color]
> 
> Ali we do not question the size of Irans army only its capability against a western superpower.   But i think the big questions is why would it come to this.   If it was proven like a_majoor pointed out that Iran or even Syria was sheltering, hidding, arming, or paying for insurgents and sponsering their campagin to disrupt Iraq and kill the citizens then a toll must be paid.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the welcome A_Majoor  

I do agree that the United States can undergo a campagin in order to nuetralize almost any nation if it really desires, as you mentioned it is the world's only current Superpower. However, considering the costs involved in such a campaign and the possible consequences not only in a direct military response from Iran but also from the further heightened tensions of much of the muslim population im not too sure it would be deemed justifiable even for them. Sure, they can rally support as they did through for Afghanistan and Iraq, and sure no matter what argument about balance of payements deficits to countries like China, it is fundable, but i feel that this is only to an extent considering the fact that Iran is not Iraq. The Iraqi Air military strikes were undertaken in a matter of days initially due to the fact that the Iraqi Airforce was one that had deteriorated rapidly from sanctions imposed and many years of war beforehand. Its 'Assets', such as the few Mig 29s and numerous other planes were buried to preserve them in event of the attack. Its army was limited in arms, low in morale (hence the large defection rate) and the population largely broken on support for Saddam. Iran is not currently like this - An attack on home soil will more likely accentuate nationalistic feelings and basically unify the country against a foreign aggerssor. Iran too has broadcasting means, as with the US, in which it can use to clearly gain back public support if given an inevitable foreign threat, even in the face of changing feelings with the youths and much desire for social reform. 

The difference between the costs of intiating a potential war on Iran and the persisting war in Iraq is much, much greater than it seems. A mere look at the map will show this. Sure, the United States does have the superior Military capabilities but you can ensure that this will not be an easy country for the United States to exert any sort of forced political influence onto. As mentioned previously, there will no doubt be a very large reaction from the muslim population in different regions as Iran is fundamentaly the only Islamic Republic around. Im sure this might not seem as much of an effect but it should not be underestimated in the face of the effects of the limited resistance and dismay that is present in Iraq. What is much more significant is the fact that the costs in terms of funding, public support, international stability, threats against United States positions globably will be vast to say the least. 

I openly state that I do not support the current regime because of atrocities commited by the Mollahs, but one thing many have failed to understand is that although it seems otherwise from a political persepective, things are changing. No doubt however I, and the majority of those I know, would love a ousting of the forced Islamisim and the leaders currently in control right now, but I must argue that there is no credible evidence to show them interfiering in Iraqi affairs or posing a threat to anyone at the moment - 

Yes, Iran does threaten Israel with extermination but this is done vice-versa to the same extent. It is a war of words associated with the pre-emptive strike threats and the mutual support for the Palestinians by the government.

Iraqi officials have consistnatly reiterated Iranian involvement in the current unrest and resistance movements in Iraq, but there really is no credible proof to be shown. It is easy to quickly jump to conclusions that because of the mere fact that Iran has a largely Shiite Muslim population that it would want to manipulate Iraq into being another Islamic Republic. Do remember that Iran has started NO wars in recent history and the only significant conflict in that it was directly involved in, the Iran-Iraq war, was caused by Saddam's expansion into Iranian terratory and Air strikes initiated by Iraq, not Iran. 

I also very much disregard statments such as those stating 'links between Iran and Al-Queda' - It is a known fact that the Iranian Regime fully opposed and opposes Afganistan's previously ruling party, as evident from the execution of Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan on an official basis and the fact that throughout their campagin Iran provided assistance, whether in limited military means (Special Forces sent in cooporation with US troops, several articles documenting this) or inteligence.

Sure, its not the ideal regime. Heck, its one that i despise more than any currently in power. But we DO have to consider facts, we DO have to evaluate, on a balanced basis, the real consequences and benifitis of such a campaign against Iran. Apart from the obvious inevitable loss of life (to a much larger extent than Iraq) on both sides, I truely believe that there will be more disadvantages than advantages from attacking a country, irregardless of current or previous ruling regimes, that prides itself with centuries of nationalistic fevor.

Its true, I dont have a written answer into what should be done, but I can say that a military campaign definetly would not be one in which the United States would benifit from in the long run...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Jan 2005)

Ali_Khl said:
			
		

> Do remember that Iran has started NO wars in recent history and the only significant conflict in that it was directly involved in, the Iran-Iraq war, was caused by Saddam's expansion into Iranian terratory and Air strikes initiated by Iraq, not Iran.



So I assume that you are not taking into account Iran's support for Hizbollah and their de facto war against Israel in Lebanon or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard attacks on international shipping in the Persian Gulf during the 1980s?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Jan 2005)

Did anyone catch CNN last night and how the Americans are focusing on Iran as the next target for permant Middle East Stability.

It was a good special, scary to.  You would almost think this is the start of the American media frenzy starting to whip up.

ALi

You are right Iran is extremely Nationalistic and would defend their home land to the bitter end i do not question that at all.  

Yes they are much more friendly to the West then other Persian Gulf states have been and or are. But if "Iraqi officials have consistnatly reiterated Iranian involvement in the current unrest and resistance movements in Iraq, but there really is no credible proof to be shown." If actual credible proof was found and stood up to the spotlight then what should happen? 

"Do remember that Iran has started NO wars in recent history and the only significant conflict in that it was directly involved in, the Iran-Iraq war."  Unles as mentioned by fisher you don't count the government support for the Hizbollah.

If and only if it were to come down to an armed conflict i think that the Americans would have to have more then just Britain and India or Pakistan on their side.  And Ali is right this would be no cake walk, they do have signifigant forces that they could through up against the Americans.  And i bet the Russians and French have tons of arms heading that way right now just in case. 

On that note though, the first Gulf War Iraq was the third largest army in the world.  They had tons of front line equipment, from planes and tanks to AFV and APC even Western tecnonolgy built into their defence network.  They had moral and they had momentem, but they were crushed no question about it.  

So Ali i don't buy that Iranian's army and airforce would do much better with front line equipment especilly with projected power the the way the Americans can.  Especially with air bases in Iraq and Say either Pakistan on India.  It would be the ocupation that would hurt just like it does now.  Maybe it would be different i don't know and hopefully we don't have to find out.

thats my spare change.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2005)

I have little doubt that America could destroy, or at least blunt, Iran's ability to wage an offensive conventional war in the region.  I think they could also degrade the Iranian Armed Forces to such an extent that they could not oppose an American assault.

Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.  Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault.  

At the same time the prospects of the nation becoming more angry as a result of offensiive military action taken against them, and thus possibly taking a more active role in supporting non-conventional foreign adventures might not serve the interests of stability well.  

And Ali informs us that his government isn't intolerable.....


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Jan 2005)

Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.  Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault.   

Agreed with 75 million i believe for population the uprisings would be impossible to quell without added violence which would just become a vicious cycle.

At the same time the prospects of the nation becoming more angry as a result of offensiive military action taken against them, and thus possibly taking a more active role in supporting non-conventional foreign adventures might not serve the interests of stability well.  

And Ali informs us that his government isn't intolerable.....

Non of this is in dispute in fact I think that Iranian Nationalism is a good thing.  It may even help the US if it can be shown that either Syrian or Iranian officals have supported the insurgence in Iraq.  Especially if it is Syria.  

As far as the government being tolerable i think that is a matter of opinion and on this i have none i don't live there nor do i have family there so i have no factual opinion on that. 

But i do agree that the average Iranian would have to be in support of any Iranian Campagain by the US or it would definetly be headed for disaster.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I have little doubt that America could destroy, or at least blunt, Iran's ability to wage an offensive conventional war in the region.   I think they could also degrade the Iranian Armed Forces to such an extent that they could not oppose an American assault.
> 
> Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.   Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault.
> 
> ...



The primary fear I have of Iran is what it will do if the people do move towards a second revolution and attempt to oust the mullahs.

1)   I think there is a good chance they would let loose with every ballistic missile they have to try to reach Israel in order to deflect the revolutionary mood.
2)   If that doesn't work, and the people still wish to oust them, I would expect a slaughter as unlike how the Shah held his fire for the most part, I don't believe the mullahs would any compassion in defending what they see as Allah's will for them to rule.

That's just me....



Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2005)

Wars within wars.....

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=967


> Last March, the leader of the al Qaeda cell in the Ein Hilweh Palestinian camp in Lebanon was blown up by a car bomb. Apparently they have since determined that the Fatah terrorist organization in Lebanon was responsible. Having assigned guilt, the al Qaeda statement added, â Å“We warn Fatah-Lebanon that we intend very soon to avenge the blood of our brother Al Masri. This warning is addressed to the entire Fatah command and leadership hierarchy in Lebanon - from the highest to the lowest commander. The statement is being taken as a declaration of war by the global jihadist al Qaeda on the Palestinian Fatah for control of Ein Hilweh, a strategic location commanding South Lebanon's Mediterranean coast.
> 
> Al Qaeda normally doesn't do this sort of thing, which makes me wonder about the real purpose. Al Qaeda usually gets its orders from Iran. Did Iran and Syria get together and hatch this scheme to stir up trouble in Lebanon to give Syria a valid excuse to keep their troops there? Much of the Syrian government's income comes from the heroin trade, and their poppy fields are in Lebanon, in the Bekaa Valley. They've been under a lot of diplomatic pressure to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. Naturally, they are reluctant to do that because it would leave their poppy fields unprotected by government troops, as well as the cache of Iraqi chemical weapons buried in that same valley. A little dust-up between rival terrorist groups is just the ticket.



Para two is a mixture of fact and speculation, of course.....?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jan 2005)

What kind of source is this?



> Al Qaeda usually gets its orders from Iran.



Since when did Shi'ite Iran begin hosting and controlling the Al Qaeda, who's Wahhabi inclination tends to put Shi'ites on the same plane as Jews?


----------



## Ali_Khl (19 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I have little doubt that America could destroy, or at least blunt, Iran's ability to wage an offensive conventional war in the region.   I think they could also degrade the Iranian Armed Forces to such an extent that they could not oppose an American assault.
> 
> Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.   Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault.
> 
> ...



Kirkhill,

I never have nor ever will claim that the Mullahs currently in power are in any way tolerable enough. It is one that has supressed those based on race, religion and actions in which in other countries would be deemed regular - I have personally witnessed those whom i know on a close level being intimidated and forced into scrapping off their coloured nail polish by the Islamic Police while I could only stand there, with nothing I could do without being thrown in prision or much worse. As ive mentioned before, it would be a most desirable situation to rid Iran of such leaders ignorent to even mere demands by its population. However I do not support a conventional war as the inevitable loss in life would negate any benifits in my opinion. And then there is the resultant notion of US-modern imperialism - I dont want Iran to face a situation as with our neighbors...
Anyways, that was just my opinion, but this thread is one not about dealing with personal consequnces of an attack, I unsterstand, but I just needed to make it clear that the wrong idea is not portrayed in any way.

In terms of their support for Hezbollah, yes, that is well known. And so is the supression daily of the Palestians by the Isrealis, but I wont go into that because in truth i cant hold support for either of those partys - Faceless killing is faceless klling in any form, and hence I will also never support the Mullahs in this way.

I was merely stating that no conventional war has been intiated by the country so far and the total war in that was the Iran-Iraq war was initated by aggressive actions of the former, and hence the large support of the population initially behind an ousting of the Iraqis. Remember, this was immedietly after the revolution and Iran was very weak militarily - Many of the higher ranking members of the Airforce and Army had been purged on the face that they were 'associates with the Shah' or that they still were Shah-loyalists, with much disorganization in military and such. Even though the US is a much greater force than Iraq, I feel that in the face of an attack by the US this will be the same in that the population will look into fighting off the aggressor to ensure national soverighty, rather than ensure the Governement's power, and hence public support for the government WILL inevitably increase, a significant disadvantage for the long-term aims of the US in the region..

I fully agree that if there is a substansial growth in discontent within the country, as was the case with Student protests against the government which gained MUCH momentum but inevitably was suppressed, there will be ample room for change and ousting of the Mollahs. I am sure that within time this will occur again, when it does itss very probable that either the local population or, if not, inevitably the United States will intervene to force them out...Its just that its really not the right time now when the Islamic Government is at a point where it can strike back with a farily large blow to stability in the region.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2005)

> Since when did Shi'ite Iran begin hosting and controlling the Al Qaeda, who's Wahhabi inclination tends to put Shi'ites on the same plane as Jews?



Iran has fingers in lots of local pies, the Hezbollah is supported by Iran but operates in Lebanon under the sufference of nominally secular Syria (and in areas with Sunni and Druze Islamic sects as well). Supporting a group which shares some common goals (defeat of the Great Satan) is hardly a streach, and with the Coallition destroying almost 3/4 of the known Al Qaeda leadership, the Iranians may be calculating the remmnants can be easily controlled.

US action military would be a last resort, up until now, they have shown a preference for  the Iranian people's pro democracy movement to do the heavy lifting. Like I have said before, only undeniable evidence, such as capturing "Revolutionary Guard" officers or men operating in Iraq, or more likely, some sort of nuclear provocation, will cause the US military to be unleashed. Many people have said, and I agree, that a conventional invasion scenario will not be feasable, but there are lots of unconventional scenarios to choose from.

In fact, given the run down state of Iran's infrastructure (remember how an entire city collapsed and 30,000 people died in a single earthquake event a year or two ago?), it may be possible to stage some "industreal accidents" to cripple the electrical and tellecommunications grid. My own thought is if it comes down to military action, a "head shot" scenario is most likely, and after the dust settles, the Iranian people will find the Mullahs no longer have centralized control of the country, and any military formation that attempts to move out of barracks will do so in an uncoordinated fashion. Post attack, the US will most likely offer moral support to the pro democracy movement, and be prepared to recognize any provisional government and supply non military aid to stabilize the situation.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (19 Jan 2005)

This may be more a reality then any of us could imagine if Rice gets her way.  Did anybody watch much of that last night.  Jeez she is a Hawk alright and seems to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder when it comes to this area of the world.

My own thought is if it comes down to military action, a "head shot" scenario is most likely, and after the dust settles, the Iranian people will find the Mullahs no longer have centralized control of the country, and any military formation that attempts to move out of barracks will do so in an uncoordinated fashion.

a_majoor  

I do somewhat agree that this would be a much more favorable approach then a full scale invasion. But it would have to follow a serious propogand campaign directed at the Iranian people to have a democratic soceity or we may just get another military dictatorship in place.  In order to have the people want the change and attempt to do it on their own.  If not the disorganization it would cause would niether benefit the US or any of the stable governments in the area.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2005)

> Its just that its really not the right time now when the Islamic Government is at a point where it can strike back with a farily large blow to stability in the region.



Ali

I think this comment lies at the heart of the matter.  The Islamic Government has capabilities to, as you say, impact on stability in the region.  They are at risk, as you also point out, from rising levels of internal dissent that they have been able to suppress to this time but will they be able to do that indefinitely?  Especially if the outcome in Iraq is, as the Americans hope, a stable secular government with a strong democratic base approved by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.  Where the Mullahs adopt the attitude towards politics apparently championed traditionally in Najaf and Karbala, an attitude where the clerics are supportive of, but do not dominate, the political life of countries.  Unlike the prevailing attitude, as I understand it, in Qom - a more direct, interventionist model.

The question for the region at large, and for America in particular, is if the Mullahs have the capability to act effectively, if they feel under threat, if they have demonstrated a willingness to act (effectively) in the past, if they are actively involved in the politics/insurgency in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, - all disputable points I grant you - but given those possibilities is it likely that they Mullahs would fail to act if they say a more stable region developing?

Is stability in their interest?  Is it in your interest?

This is what I meant when I described the Mullahs as being "tolerable".  The level of frustration that their rule causes within your society is not sufficiently great that your society has come to the conclusion that it must remove the Government, even at the ballot box.  Your society therefore appears to be willing to accept the impositions of the Mullahs in exchange for an absence of war.  Therefore your society tolerates them.

And after the Iran/Iraq wars and the many deaths visited on your country I am in no position to blame you and your countrymen for not wanting to risk more deaths.

Cheers Ali,


----------



## Wizard of OZ (19 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill 

I agree with some of that.  Taking the crap to stop the possible shit.

 But it should not be up to the US to spread democracy, it has to be something the people want not something the US wants.  If they try and force it on people the people may just reject it and fight to change it Vietnam comes to mind.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2005)

And that I agree with as well Wizard.

It SHOULD not be up to the Americans, and it has to be something the people want, not just the US.  The problems come when other circumstances impact on the decision-making process in outside countries, including America and also in trying to determine the "Will" of the people.  

Vietnam was not just an American war, it was a Civil War. Although the North won, many Vietnamese, both North and South were not supporters of Communism and suffered, left or accepted. In other countries populations have been split by Civil War. Sometimes the majority wins, sometimes a minority wins, sometimes a tiny minority will fail to accept an outcome and make life miserable for the majority for years, (decades in Ireland).

Neither Canada nor the US could come to a clear decision in our recent elections.  

If action is taken, and I hope that it isn't, then it is entirely likely that the end result in Iran would be that expected in any population, some will greet, some will oppose and most will fret in the middle wishing for a quiet life.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Jan 2005)

It does make me laugh when i hear that America is the defender of democracy as in the last election they relied on the courts to pick instead of the people and well Canada that is a whole different story.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2005)

The thing about America is that, rightly or wrongly, they have rules to deal with just about every situation, including what happens when the people can't decide, and they follow the rules.  That adherence to the rules is what sets them, and most of the west, most of the time, apart from countries like Syria and Libya.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Jan 2005)

I don't know if i agree with America following the rules as they tend to make them as they go along or interpret them however they need them to sound at the time.  But for the most part it does set the West apart from most other nations.  Did anyone catch his Inaugural Speech?

this could be more of a reality then any of us realize in the near future.   :-\


----------



## elminister (20 Jan 2005)

The US represents a system known to some the "Hegemond." 
They are the leading state at this time and it is therefore their duty to establish law and order international.  :threat:

Right about now they can do whatever they like with  reasonable justification.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Jan 2005)

yea but i don't remeber them being appointed the worlds police man do you?  ;D

Being able to do anything does not mean that you have to do something.  

I don't see them pushing China around.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2005)

BACK ON TOPIC, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2005)

elminister said:
			
		

> The US represents a system known to some the "Hegemond."
> They are the leading state at this time and it is therefore their duty to establish law and order international.   :threat:
> 
> Right about now they can do whatever they like with reasonable justification.



Actually, they are seen as the Hegemon.   It doesn't imply that they can do whatever they like with reasonable justification per se, rather it means that their economic, military and political dominance leads to it being the key shaper of norms in the international system (it is not a "duty" and they cannot do "whatever they like").


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Jan 2005)

Sorry


What time frame are we feeling that this may turn into an actual shooting war? 2-3 yrs or longer.  How long does the US give them to buy more weapons?


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2005)

Here's the thing, if everybody does their job right and a reasonable dose of good luck occurs it may never happen.  On the other hand if Slim's post on Boston is accurate then tensions could be getting pretty tight right now.  

Which would suit Syria and Iran better? A two front war against an extended Coalition with Iran primarily facing off against the UK zone in the Shiite south and Syria facing off against a dispersed US force in the North?  Starting before a "legitimate" government can be installed?  Or wait until after the elections, when the government has more international and internal legitimacy, the level of violence may or may not have decreased but there will certainly be more informers making covert action harder, and the US has an opportunity to regroup, reorg and pick its own time and target?

I could imagine that right now some people in various places could be getting wound up pretty tight right about now.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (20 Jan 2005)

My guess is Iran or Syria would not make the first move of a shooting war anyway.... i think they are more likely to try and provoke the US into attacking THEM if anything.thoughts?


----------



## Ty (20 Jan 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> My guess is Iran or Syria would not make the first move of a shooting war anyway.... i think they are more likely to try and provoke the US into attacking THEM if anything.thoughts?



Why would they provoke one of the world's strongest militaries into war?  As noted before, both Iran and Syria would likely loose a war with the US (assuming the US pushes on until the end)- granted casualties would be high on both ends, but I fail to see why they would want to start that end-game.

To that note, if both Iran and Syria engaged in a war with the US, any thoughts as to the latter's ability to wage an offensive on both ends while maintaining present operations in the area?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Jan 2005)

It would most definetly be tuff to do.  But if the assets were in place it could be done.

They may try and provoke a small scale border engagment and then attempt to blame the americans for the attack or attempt to provoke Isreal into the conflict hence bringing in Jordon and the rest of the Mid East into the conflict.  

As far as starting a mager offensive i don't see it the US would Prob pick it up and bomb the snot out of it before it got too close to Iraq.

But then you may be right they may try and start it up before elections say ohh the 28th or so with a hard push into southern Iraq and Norther Iraq cutting off the oil fields and such.  

But if the US gets Pakistan or India on their side it would make Iran and Syria think twice.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2005)

Thinking the US is "overstreached" or unable to fight a multi front conflict is limiting your thinking to "conventional" warfighting.

Two points I must reiterate:

1. The United States may not be able to mount a conventional invasion against Syria or Iran, *but could still do an effective "head-shot" and put those nations out of commission if it is deemed nessesary.* The risk is the chaotic conditions following such a move would throw almost any sort of military, political or economic strategy out the window.

2. Because of the intelligence fiasco involving pre war Iraq, the administration will not take action unless it can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Either captured Syrian or Iranian officers leading anti-American fighters (or something equally clear-cut), or a provocation by one of these nations, most probably Iran, and most certainly if it involved the use or threat of nuclear weapons against American forces or the US Homeland.

Unless those conditions can be met, only the intelligence preparation of the battlefield and possibly "deep black" operations will be the limit to American activity.

This apparently does not stop the conspiracy theorists who look at the second Inagural speech as a plan to invade the rest of the Middle East. The administration is thinking along these lines *as a last resort*, Dr Rice's tough talk during her confirmation hearings is a fairly clear sign of that, but unless there is a provocation, I will only say "Watch and Shoot".


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Jan 2005)

Majoor the head shot may do nothing more then put a worse government in place, i think it is an option even a fiesable one if the Americans can get the Iranians up in arms over there own government may work.  But without civil revolt or demonstation i doubt we would see the "head shot".  

I do agree with this though". Because of the intelligence fiasco involving pre war Iraq, the administration will not take action unless it can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Either captured Syrian or Iranian officers leading anti-American fighters (or something equally clear-cut), or a provocation by one of these nations, most probably Iran, and most certainly if it involved the use or threat of nuclear weapons against American forces or the US Homeland.

Unless those conditions can be met, only the intelligence preparation of the battlefield and possibly "deep black" operations will be the limit to American activity.

That is absolutely true.  Only time will tell.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Jan 2005)

Just got this off of Canoe.ca

But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons. 

Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program. 

"It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek." 

Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack. 

"We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq.  

hummm seems like a little more banter for us.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2005)

Long post by VDH, annotations by myself

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Special/A11902002_1.htm


> *Has Iraq Weakened Us?*
> 
> Victor Davis Hanson
> 
> ...


----------



## Wizard of OZ (26 Jan 2005)

i think most of this battle has moved onto the other Iran post.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2005)

Looks that way.

Moderator merge?


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2005)

The successful holding of elections in Iraq may be a catalyst for many changes in the region. Iran's pro democracy movement may be emboldened by this, and it certainly will cause reverberations in Syria and Saudi Arabia as well. 

Iraq itself still has a long way to go, but here is an analogy which should offer hope:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200501310748.asp


> *The Reachable Star*
> War-ravaged elections and human freedom.
> 
> In the short history of this novel democratic experiment, the national election would easily be the single most critical development ever...if there actually could be an election worthy of the name. That was in grave doubt.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2005)

*Make Up Your Mind*
The Left's national-security schizophrenia.

It is too late in the day to rehearse why anyone not wearing a tinfoil hat to guard against invasive gamma rays should avoid squandering valuable time on anything written by Seymour Hersh. Been there, done that (see here) - as have NR's John J. Miller and, only recently, Michael Ledeen and Max Boot.

There is, however, something interesting about the latest glimpse into the Pulitzer-laureate's alternative universe. Yes, of course it's yet another "Dude, the Neocons Are Stealing My Country" rant (actually called "The Coming Wars - What the Pentagon Can Now Do in Secret"). And yes, notwithstanding apparent errors and internal inconsistencies, it still somehow managed to get past those exacting fact-checkers at The New Yorker - the ones editor David Remnick recently hyped (in a forward to Hersh's last book) as the justification for continuing to give Hersh license to litter the magazine's pages with unaccountable, unverifiable innuendo. But if we leave Hersh's details aside, there is much to be gleaned from his choice of subject matter.

What has Hersh atwitter this time is that *the Bush administration may actually be making contingency plans for military operations against Iran. We can and should assume that this is true *- though not because Hersh is reporting it. It should be true because it would be national suicide if it weren't. So the questions are (a) why is this a story at all, and (b) is the Left ever going to get adult about national security? In fact, on the latter, we might even be grateful if they could crank it up to adolescent.

If one were a cynic (not me, of course), one might conclude that the Left - or at least that faction of it now running the asylum - is serious about only one thing: hardcore politics. It looks at each new scenario as it arises, detached from any sense of history or priority, and asks not "How does this affect the national security of the United States?" but rather "How do we score some points here to get back in the game?"

The Kerry campaign exhibited this phenomenon in small but telling compass: Having supported the Iraq war when the wind was blowing that way, vote against financing it when things get rough. Having gutted intelligence funding to feed at the social-welfare trough of a naÃƒÂ¯ve "peace dividend," become indignant about unconnected dots when an intelligence calamity occurs during a Republican administration. Having screamed about the patent virtues of multilateral diplomacy when the president held firm on Iraq, decry the patent defects of multilateral diplomacy when the president tries it in North Korea. And so on.

The conventional post-election wisdom is that Senator Kerry was a weak candidate, but more and more it's apparent that the message is a bigger problem than the messenger. When it comes to the public welfare, the Left is not serious. Going berserk over the possibility that the officials charged with protecting us may be thinking about ways to address Iran, our nation's top security threat, is testament to the fact that Kerry may be gone but the problem isn't.

*Having a contingency plan does not mean we anticipate invading tomorrow. It means, ironically enough, having a "plan" in the event a "contingency" occurs. One elementary task of intelligence is to identify contingencies - i.e., things that are within the realm of the conceivable, and for which we need countermeasures at the ready - so that we can stop them from happening, make them less likely to happen, and react effectively if they do happen.*

The 9/11 Commission comes to mind. The Left liked it well enough when some of its Democratic members were portraying Bush administration officials as asleep at the wheel in the months before the attacks, and when its proposals for streamlining obstacles to intelligence-sharing were to create new layers of government bureaucracy. Nonetheless, among its major findings were multiple failures of creative planning - which stretched back for years. Most pertinent for present purposes is its account of the days just after the suicide hijackings:

    President Bush recalled that he quickly realized that the administration would have to invade Afghanistan with ground troops. But the early briefings to the President and Secretary Rumsfeld on military options were disappointing. Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Central Command (CENTCOM), told us that the President was dissatisfied. The U.S. military, Franks said, did not have an off-the-shelf plan to eliminate the al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. (Final Report, p. 332)

*Is that the flat-footed state of affairs we want for Iran? Enemies who believe we are either unwilling or unable to respond effectively are much more likely to attack us.
*
Prior to 9/11, Iran's wholly owned subsidiary, Hezbollah, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization on the planet. The 1983 attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon and the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (which collectively killed 260 American military personnel) tell only a small part of the story. *For years, Hezbollah has provided al Qaeda with training. Iran, meantime, has given safe harbor to high-ranking al Qaeda members (under the charade of house arrest) - effectively making them untouchable short of an invasion. Iran has likely backed Muqtadar al-Sadr's destabilizing Mahdi Army in Iraq, and likely has a cooperative relationship with Iraq terror "emir" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It is working energetically behind the scenes to kill American forces and cause the failure of our mission. It is going nuclear, if it hasn't gone already. And its saber-rattling about attacking Israel and American interests has become steadily more provocative. The authentic scandal here would be if we weren't making some kind of plan.*

Which, naturally, is the next point. Let's say we did not make any contingency plans and Iran, tomorrow, did precisely what it has been threatening to do. What would we be hearing from Sy Hersh and his fellow-travelers? Exactly what we heard from all these folks when they woke up on September 12, 2001, and suddenly decided there was some political hay to be made in taking on the mantel of stalwart security hawks: "Where was the preparation? Since we knew Iran was dangerous, why weren't its threats taken more seriously? Why wasn't everyone at 'battle stations' like we were back in those super-competent days of the Y2K crisis?" (By the way, if you're trying to pinpoint those days, they occurred roughly a year after these hawks did nothing about the embassy bombings and a year before they did nothing about the Cole bombing.)

*It's a dangerous world out there. Entirely independent of Iran, China gazes longingly at Taiwan; North Korea, run by a crazy person, is nuclear power; the simmering India-Pakistan conflict could heat up anew; militant Islam's genocide policy in Sudan could become so unsightly as (finally) to demand a global response; Putin's latent revanchism could send further tremors through vulnerable former Soviet satellites; terrorism in Iraq could spike again even after the historic elections; the Europeans could have another Madrid; or we could be directly targeted for another domestic attack. And those are only some of the known unknowns.*

We can hope nothing bad happens. Perhaps some of us can delude ourselves, even as palpable dangers beckon, that we have reached an epoch, heretofore unknown in the history of time, when bad things that profoundly affect us no longer happen. But for the rest of us, we need a plan. We need lots of plans - at least one for every contingency, along with a humble hope that, for all the billions spent on sustaining and refurbishing the intelligence community, someone better informed than we are is spotting other contingencies and making other plans.

The Left and its allied media (like Hersh, who continues, with lots of help, to pose as an objective reporter) are playing a dangerous game here. If the actual thinking-through of national security becomes a political liability, the more timorous among the political class will stop doing it, or at least do a lot less of it. The "thinking outside the box" that the Commission concluded was sorely lacking will entirely disappear. Maybe the Left then scores some points in the public-relations environment it is laboring to design, but we'll all be a lot less safe.

That's why it shouldn't take another 3,000 dead people for us to say: "The Pentagon damn well better be thinking about Iran!"

- Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2005)

Currently the favored option: http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/02/reading-tea-leaves-bushs-strategy-on.html

Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Reading the tea leaves - Bush's Strategy on Iran

I believe the President has settled on the direction he is going to pursue with Iran. If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, it would appear a pattern has begun to emerge in the recent statements by President Bush, Condolezza Rice and others.

What is the new strategy?

Let's begin with President Bush's State of the Union speech. The President warned the Iranian regime that he is willing to significantly ramp up his support for the Iranian people:

    "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight:

    As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

The President has recently warned Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program and that he has not taken the military option off the table. At the same time, he also made clear his interest in pursuing a "diplomatic solution."

Why A diplomatic solution?

First, military action in Iran would likely be counter productive. Military action would almost certainly have the unintended consequence of killing large numbers of civilians and thus create a "rally around the government" effect. This would provide a tremendous opportunity for the regime to argue that the US government does not really "care about the people" of Iran. Thus alienating the very people we want to support.

Second, it is also unlikely that such military action could permanently stop Iran's nuclear effort. To accomplish this would require an invasion of Iran and therefore a much larger military force than we have available at this time, so we are told.

Third, Europe is unlikely to ever support military action against Iran and the US public would also find it hard to support it unless there was an imminent threat. (Nearly everyone would want irrefutable proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program).

So what options are left?

An effective non military response to the Iranian threat would require the administration find an issue that is universally accepted in order to gain international support. Such international support was essential in the recent popular revolt in the Ukraine.

Such an issue already exists.

I believe the issue the administration intends to focus on is human rights in Iran.

If you follow the news on Iran, the administration has begun focusing on the human rights issue as it relates to Iran. Here are a few examples:

President Bush alluded to it in his inaugural address:

    From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. ...

    America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

    We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Condoleezza Rice:

    Iranians "suffer under a regime that has been completely unwilling to deal with their aspirations and that has an appalling human rights record". BBC

Even Senator Brownback, the new chairman of the Helsinki Commission says he plans to highlight Iranian human rights issues with Europe. The NY Sun reports:

    The plan by Senator Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, is in keeping with the president's commitment to spread freedom throughout the world...

    Senator Brownback said he planned to publicize the plight of Iranian dissidents in hearings before the Helsinki Commission, the American body created in 1976 to engage the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe on their treatment of political prisoners and human rights. American envoys would often read the names of political prisoners aloud at commission-related meetings, at first to embarrass their Soviet counterparts. Later this technique proved effective, when in the twilight of the Cold War many political prisoners were released.

    "We are going to bring up human rights issues and what is taking place in Iran aggressively," he said.

Europe and the UN have a long history of advocating human rights. Europe has tied increased trade with Iran to improvements in their human rights record. European leaders advocacy for Human Rights in Iran bought them popular political support at home at very little cost.

Europeans are proud of their leaders stand for Human Rights. It was no surprise to Europeans that the Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize.

If the US makes Human Rights in Iran a centerpiece of its Iran policy, the EU and the UN will have to support it. Russia and China would find it difficult to oppose it.

President Bush's support for "their issue" will likely be perceived by Europeans generally as a European victory. Popular support could force their leaders to join the US effort.

If Iran refuses to permanently end its uranium enrichment program, as they claim, the EU will have to withdraw its offer of increased trade.

Instead, I would then expect an ever increasing demand of the international community to end all trade (the EU's only real weapon) until the regime guarantees the Iranian people's human rights.

Already British firms such as BP have declared that they will not invest further in Iran. US firms have also taken similar positions and I expect we will see an ever growing number of international firms ending their business relations with the Iranian regime.

Why will this help bring down the regime?

First, the people of Iran will at long last receive the international attention and support they have been pleading for. This support will encourage the people to stand against the regime and various elements in government will be forced to decide whether to support the people of Iran or their unpopular leaders.

Thus the regime will face a serious dilemma.

On the one hand, cracking down on dissent will further alienate the regime and likely result in an end to international investments/trade in Iran.

On the other hand, the regime cannot comply with this without risking encouraging a popular revolt.

Iran's presidential elections are scheduled for June. The hardline elements in Iran have been hoping to further consolidate their power and will not likely be interested in being pressured by the international community on human rights.

If the Iranian regime cracks down on popular dissent this time, the international community will be watching as never before. Crack downs will lead to further doubts by the international business community. As more firms pull away from Iran, investment dollars will dry up.

Iran needs the investment dollars to keep the regime in power. Unemployment is already unbearable. Significant increases in unemployment will only fuel more civil unrest.

It would appear the regime will be in a no win situation.

President Bush is about to travel to Europe. If I am right, we will see a mending of relations and a new unity among the US and the EU.

Time appears to be running out for the Mullahs of Iran. It may prove to be a very hot summer in Iran.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Feb 2005)

Might work. If not there is the B-2 option.


----------



## Dare (5 Feb 2005)

Hello, I'm new here.  Just thought I'd give my two loonies worth.

I see very little mentioned about Russia here. I think we have to look at a broader war in the coming years. I do not believe it will simply be Syria and Iran. I see the United States, and perhaps a few other allies invading Syria. For what reason I don't know, but I suspect it will be relatively soon. I do believe that Syria played a huge role in the removal of assorted WMD in Iraq. I suspect strongly that Russia played a role and that a lot of this is being kept from the public in the interest of better relations and Russia cooperation in the War on Terror. I think when Douglas Feith mentioned something about classified documents about that in public he was not doing it purely for politics as suggested. Nor do I believe the debunkers are accurate. There is a lot of desire in Russia and bitterness over the USAs actions in Afghanistan which was a major reason for the deconstruction of the Soviet Empire. I believe that constant calls in the media comparing Iraq to Vietnam is wishful thinking on many peoples parts, and also part of a plan of action on the part of west's enemies. It is clear that Iran and Syria are both funding directly, using highly trained operatives, the Iraqi resistance. The problem is not a lot of thought (public at least) is going into the question of: "Who is funding the funders?". If you look carefully you will see many strong links from Iran and Syria back to Russia. Russia is involved heavily in the Iranian nuclear program, which I surely hope no one here truely believes the Mullahs when they state it is for peaceful purposes. When there are threats against Iran and it's military complexes, the threat is to Russia and it's enormous investments in Iran. Russia is a very poor country, and I do not think it will take kindly to losing more billions. With US bases in former Soviet territory, and Ukraine beiing torn from it's grasp. There is little doubt whom they consider the real threat. Just recently there was a report that Russia had upped it's foreign information collection the US (spying) back to cold war levels. Which is pretty darn high. I have a feeling they are not just collecting data. There is a considerable selection of the population world wide that could be brought under their sway. I even see some anti-american memes being displayed in this very thread. I think my fellow Canadians need to realize fairly soon that us (the general Canadian population, not necessarily you, the reader) constantly denegrating the US on it's efforts in Iraq, does not help our mission any in Afghanistan. 

If we watch the rising tide of anti-americanism and anti-sematism, often becoming linked, we can see how they are directing their useful idiots in a manner as to prevent a workable missile shield, and to prevent any sort of action that could bring about a realistic peace in the middle east. Interestingly enough it is often under the guise of peace groups that this is conducted. Ultimately, I do believe 100% that we in the west will be hit with a very large surprise attack shortly after the United States attacks Syria. I am sure we will prevail but I am also equally sure that it will not be fighting ragtag militia. They will be of the same generation of warriors. I think that Canada largely has taken it's eye off the ball, at least in the public sector, to the undercurrents of our society. Just today I saw in the mall a watch with the old hammer and sickle on it proudly displayed at a watch store. I thought, "that's fashionable now??". I see people who walk around wearing Che Guevara tshirts and hats, most of them don't even know who the guy is. When you ask ask tell them who he was, often you'll get "yeah, he faught the americans, about time someone stood up to those imperialists" or some stupid tripe like that. Now people may be thinking I have strayed from the topic here with my long drawn out rant.  Rest assured, it's all part of the same motion. It's not necessarily communist inspired, but it uses any artifact or symbol of any power, ideology or icon that has challenged the US. This sudden torrent didnt just materialise because of the Iraq war. It materalized because the wests enemies are scared as hell. They don't have a lot left to grasp on to and they saw a point they could clutch and make their mantra. Anti-sematism and anti-americanism are rife in many places in Europe, and I do believe that because of this, NATO is basically a shell organization when the "fit hits the shan", Canada shouldn't count on them to help us in this fight. Should America be hit hard enough to make an invasion possible, is Canada going to be able to defend it's economic centres from capture? Remeber the Russians have the missiles that can knock American planes and sats out of the sky and the mines and launchers that can take out American tanks far easier than those old Soviet era weapons used in Iraq. This would not be anything close to a cakewalk. This would be a very fast paced, bitter war. I have mentioned this to many of my fellow Canadians and they think it's crazy or unlikely. For some reason we seem to think the rest of the world is realist, rational, or even pacifist. That an attack against the United States is impossible, simply due to it's size. Many of these people also thought Kerry would win.  Well if Iraq works out, and it looks like it is slowly. We can see an Iraqi army being an American ally (despite a lot of hearsay, Iraqis are quite nationalistic, not likely to bind into a civil war). 

Now if an enemy of the USA wanted to attack. Where would it be at it's weakest point? It certainly would not be after it has democratized the middle east. It certainly would not be after it mass manufactures next generation equipment. It would be after the US enters another campain. In this fog of war, I could see it very likely that high tech weapons will be given to Syria and Iran. World opinion of the US would nose dive, and if the US can gather any allies to attack Syria other than Israel and Australia it might be a bit of luck. Now amid this confusion, the US would have lost several of it's jets and taken more substantial loses than in Iraq. Syrian generals have learned that the US is quite serious and will likely have already prepared for an insurgancy campain, and will llikely use every tactic in the book. Now you'll have a more thinned out fully engaged US military. Battle weary but experienced. Public opinion in the floors. It would be relatively easy for foreign recruiters to turn many to them and likely bring a few more nations into this anti-american alliance. Possibly even forment a small revolt within the US itself. 

Yes the public veneer of Russia is of a new partnership, and the EU as a benign union, supposedly not replacing NATO (emphasis on "supposedly"). I think we need to realistically view our defence policy, free from any politicians clap traps or snide remarks. It's one thing to hate a mans swager, it's another to give support to men who want us dead.The Iraqi elections did put a huge dent in a portion of the criticism but the threat is still a very real threat. Because I suspect that in the future, Canada will be involved in some way in these "wars of the future". I also suspect it will not be very similar to the Three Block War we are preparing for. I just hope we are not playing catch up when it's too late.

That's how I see it.   May not be a popular or brief opinion, but it's mine. 

Rational opinions/comments/concerns welcome. 

- D

*dons flack jacket* *slips in a ceramic plate* *runs away!*


----------



## Big Foot (5 Feb 2005)

Hrmmm, world seems to be going to hell very very quickly... *runs away* When will it all end? When the Middle East is a glass parking lot? Scary...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2005)

Very interesting look at the Russian connection, probably more going on that it would seem on the surface. I wonder what China's role in all this is as well?

The Iranian/Syrian "Headshot" campaign remains an option of almost last resort, but here, perhaps is a better alternative:



> Faster, Please
> *Iran needs change. We need to help â â€ now. *
> 
> 
> ...


----------

