Solving the mess in Iraq

Remove all ads!

I forgot I use a British English spell checker plug-in.

The point I forgot to make about Sadat and 1973 because I was laughing so hard is this:

After their smashing successes and operational brilliance against Arab armies the Israelis were confident that their armed forces and intelligence had no peer in the Middle East. That had a consequence for Israeli foreign policy: With an invincible army and a superior intelligence service they could conveniently refuse to negotiate with the Arabs from anything but a position of strength from which they would then dictate terms.

Egypt's Sadat diagnosed that affliction in Israel before the 1973 war. He called it the 'Israeli Security Doctrine'. The Egyptians assessed that Israeli Strategy firmly rested on the Israeli belief that they could deter any Arab attempts to recover territory lost through military action. Sadat concluded that in order to make the Israelis negotiate he needed to smash that confidence. Because he knew Egypt could not defeat Israel, he intended from the onset to instead wage a limited war that was to be as costly for Israel as possible by exploiting their weaknesses - reliance on timely intelligence (countered through a clever deception campaign), lack of artillery and infantry, over reliance on tanks (to be countered with anti-tank missiles) and aircraft (to be countered with anti-air missiles) and force a foreign intervention (the US came along). The results of the war proved him right. Egypt got peace with Israel, got back the Sinai peninsula. After losing 2.656 soldiers in the Yom Kippur War Israel suddenly wanted to negotiate. And today Egypt brokers peace deals for Israel.

The neo-con doctrine of regime change hinges upon a premise very similar to the 'Israeli Security Doctrine'. In neo-con land where regime change is the only acceptable way to deal with Evil, the use of force is not the ultima ratio but the tool of choice, because only overwhelming the enemy guarantees that US interests are imposed without being watered down. Diplomacy is there to prepare the required casus belli and ensure a free hand. The US have won the Cold War, the Gulf War, smashed Afghanistan and Iraq handily. American skill of arms has no peer. American military technology is superior. America eventually has achieved full spectrum dominance, hegemony and whatnot. The strategy of regime change, inevitably and necessarily backed up with the threat of military force, assumes US invincibility, and plans to use US military dominance to achieve foreign policy goals on the cheap, without the need to negotiate. In the end the 'Israeli Security Doctrine' was dispelled as an illusion, at a high cost to Israel. The example of 1973 suggests that, as the US, too, do have weaknesses that can be exploited, their (over)confidence can be shaken, too, and that it will hurt, too.

I do not think that a policy is desirable that invites enemies to shake US confidence through a bloodied nose, because American attitudes suggest to them that is about the only way to make people like Bush or Cheney or probably McCain listen. Chances are that if a McCain comes along, he'll have a tantrum and just bomb or nuke them for their impertinence to fail to submit or to thwart a cunning US plan. A strategy of regime change inevitably aims on escalation, because war, in face of a stubborn refusal to engage in meaningful diplomacy, is the only other place where substantial US strength lies. This needlessly puts the lives of soldiers on the line, not to mention the bystanders in the targeted countries. The worst feature of it is that such a policy has no back-up plan but more of the same if the desired result fails to materialise. Locking oneself firmly on such a path to escalation is stupid and irresponsible.

 

Actually ragusa i had heard of Mordechai & yes Israel like any nation that had waged several successful wars against numerically superior foes had developed an invinciblity syndrome. No doubt about any of that.
The deal with Carter is that unlike a LOT of others is that just about anything he says will get picked up & broadcast on ALL the networks fairly quickly.
The arab states are just like the rest of us, we tend to forgot about the boogeyman when we aren't confronted by him or conversely in their case they have heard it from jewish/american sources & just don't believe it. Having someone who was on their side state it so bluntly may have jarred it through a few of there heads that maybe it isn't propaganda after all.
I'm a little confused by your comment that "Keep in mind that Israel's demand that the Arab states accept it's statehood and right for existence is unrealistic (for a lot of reasons, religious and political ones)." Now why in heck would any country be unreasonable or unrealistic to expect it's neighboring states to recognise it's statehood when the rest of the world countries do. The UN, NATO & numerous other org.s acknowledge Israels existence so why should these arab states be exempt?
By your reasoning, we(the U.S.) would be perfectly within our rights to refuse to recognise the rights of iran to exist as a country. Sorry ragusa but this argument of yours doesn't hold water. Some of your others are MUCH better.
Oh BTW i'm more of a dog person personally

 

Most Arab / Muslim nations feel that they had land stolen from them, which was subsequently used to form Israel. They feel that the European "powers that be" just drew some lines on a map without first asking the people who lived on the land those maps represented.

Imagine how the US would respond if a vastly superior country just drew a new line on the map, that line reaching from Los Angeles, going inland 400 miles, then going north until about Seattle? Said superior country then says "this is the new homeland for several million refugees from China!" I think the US would be a little pissed.*

This is not to say that I do not advocate Israel's right to exist. IMHO it is fait accompli and the nations around that are should just get used to it. It's not like they are progressing culturally or economically while they wage a futile war / set of terrorist acts. If they were smart they would work WITH Israel and try to achieve some prosperity for everyone concerned. They probably believe that they can't do that without losing face, and in the international community, reputation is everything.

*my geography is a rusty -- please don't come after me saying that the line I just drew marks out a territory that is smaller / bigger than Israel or whatever. I'm just making a point about how I believe the Middle East perceives the circumstances around the creation of Israel.

 

martaug,
everyone knew Israel had nukes. It was THE open secret. It didn't need Carter to make that public. I certainly knew it for two decades or so. The Palestinians know it too. And to claim Carter gave the issue extra publicity, making it worse, is preposterous. What this about Carter is is artificial and phony outrage for partisan gain. I wouldn't bother with.

As for Israel's legitimacy as a country, the issue of the Palestinians is an issue that is taken very seriously in the Arab world. There is a profound feeling of compassion for the plight of the Palestinians, which is in part deeply religiously rooted. Recognising Israel has some very practical problems for an Arab country: Recognise Israel? What do you mean with Israel? What are the exact borders of this to be recognised Israeli state? Does that include Gaza and the West bank? Oh, and what about the Palestinians themselves? Is there a right of return? What about Sheba Farms, the Golan? Each of them are major unresolved issues. All this is being exacerbated by Israel's settlement policy.
It is not as easy as your portrait of the issue makes it. A hudna, stopping to kill each other, is a good start to try figure out the other things like borders and then improve on that gradually. Yes it is a modest step, but it is doable. If that isn't enough for you, keep in mind that it appears to suffice for the Israelis, and that is much more than what happened in a very long time before. But it requires mutual commitment. As I said, I hope both sides have the good sense to try to make it work.

I have in this intentionally left out the religious dimension, because I don't have the time right now to to the necessary research first. I will see if I can do that at a later time.

 

We have already addressed the non-issue of the palestinians in numerous posts in other threads before. They again are a non-issue as the land(the west bank, the golan heights, gaza strip & sinia peninsulula) that was claimed by israel after the 1967 war was first claimed by egypt,syria & jordan after their attack on israel in 1948. So they actually stole it from your non-existent palestinians first. They didn't seem to concerned about them then did they? So for 19-20 years , syria, jordan & egypt held all this land & made NO attempts at all to establish this ALL important palestinian homeland? Yeah it must be so important to, um. . . . . . well . . . . nobody really.

 

That's a good point. And the fact is, as you suggest, the Arab states have been using the plight of the Palestinians for pure political gain. They may be the martyrs of the Arab world, but beyond that, they serve little purpose.

 

Dangit Chandos stop that! We cant keep agreeing on things

 

I would agree, somewhat. The Palestianian plight appears to be a cause celebre for much of the Arab world, and while I do not presume to know all the underlying causes of this movement, I'd say it certainly has some political benefit. By pledging support for the Palestinians, I'd say the ruling elites are boosting their image with their own people. Of course, actually housing the Palestinian refugees has tended to, er, cause problems. Though some of the support for their cause may be sincere, they look better as martyrs, suffering unjustly - at an arm's length.

But let's get back to Iraq. Personally, I very much doubt Iran would invade Iraq if the US left (actually, I very much doubt the US would leave completely without at least leaving a base or two around, maybe in the safer Kurdish areas). First, of course, an invasion would spoil the good relations with Iraq Iran enjoys (as invasions tend to). Second, invading Iraq would quite likely lead to retaliations, and not just from the US. Much is made of the enmity between Iran and Israel, and not without purpose - but Iran's also engaged in a fierce, if low-key, rivalry with the other Arab states, which afaik have no love for it either and standed idly by - or supported Iraq - during the 1980's war. The few Iranians that I have talked to spoke of that war as a definitive moment in their country's recent history, and I do not doubt them. So while Iran would no doubt like to extend its influence in Iraq, I very much doubt it would do so at gunpoint. It might aid the Shiah if sectarian violence broke out, however, but in that case it would probably be a free-for-all in which all sides use external help. Third, if Iran did invade Iraq, it would probably face nearly the same problems the US army is facing - only with much harsher external conditions and much less well equipped army. I very much doubt the ruling mullahs are that reckless. Still, I would hope to see a more moderate president in Tehran - Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has made other countries, probably not just Israel, feel threatened and thus more aggressive intheir mindset.

 

The Arabs, namely Syria has been using the Palestinians for their benefit by creating and nurturing them as a major inconvenience to Israel to exert pressure to get their territory lost back. But make no mistake, the issue is THE issue in the middle east. The Saudis do not care about Palestine or Jerusalem? Ask the Saudis. They do and they mean it when they say it. They are royally pissed off at the US to simply withdraw from any peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel (Annapolis was a joke).

Shaman,
As for the enmity, that's actually much more recent than current Israeli talk suggests. let's not forget that Israeli ministers made secret visits to Tehran throughout the war in the 1980s and had talks and sold them arms all the while the Ayatollahs held speeches condemning Israel. It suggests that there is talk and political necessity, in the sense that the Ayatollahs needed to appease the Arab countries by confirming their opposition to Israel. Check that link to Trita Parsi I gave in one of the previous posts.

As for fierce regional rivalry - let's just say that the Iranians have not forgotten that during their war with Iraq the only ally they had was Syria. The rest of the Arab states ganged up on them and supported Saddam. That war cost them a million citizens. In face of this the Iranians certainly have a distinct and understandable desire for security.

But I agree with your assessment of what would happen if Iran foolishly would decide to invade Iraq. They are not so stupid. They can have much the same influence without the cost by just being friendly to the Shiite government.

 

Actually, I'd say the country most likely to invade Iraq (first, that is - afterwards there may be a chain reaction as other countries move in to "defend their interests") is Turkey. The prospect of a nearly-autonomous Kurd state at its borders does not sit well with it, especially not with a PKK bombing every several months. There were some skirmishes already, and it may not be easy keeping the Turks in line if the US forces withdrew completely and were not replaced by another peacekeeping force. The Kurds may be the Pandora's apple for Iran as well, but Iran has influence in Iraq that Turkey does not.

 

Given recent history, the country most likely to invade Iraq is the US. After all, "three's a charm."

 

I think the US will wait for a provocation. Of course, if the US continues on the Bush course, it could interpret nearly anything as a provocation

 

Definitely. I think the Iranian's best bet in case of a 'limited' US or Israeli strike is a 'use it or lose it' opening. Considering current US attitudes, they gonna get bombed no matter what anyway. I think it is a moronic strategic move to encourage your enemies to think that way.

How will Iranian retaliation look like? Try this scenario - they and their Shiite allies will try to cut off US supply lines in the south, and unsupplied, US troops will take serious losses once they run out of food, batteries, fuel and ammo. Which, according to morons like Victor Davis Hanson, is a great thing because it will strengthen US resolve. Hey, by the way, support the troops! But not too much, after all, they're all volunteers and made the choice to become pawns on the Grand Chessboard.

I am confident that for Cheney Iranian retaliation is a great thing as an ex post justification for a US attack. It underlines how nefarious Iran is - after all they have been attacked for their aggressive acts (there is your self-fulfilling prophecy). Also, he and his goons think that America is in full control of whatever will happen after the strike (just look how well their foresight worked after the looting or the dissolution of the Iraqi army), after all, Navy, Navy aviation and US Air Force currently are 'underutilised'. Point is, these people are extremely self-assured, smart, articulate, and full of it. They really believe it will work. War games have been less optimistic.

Cheney thinks bombing Iran is really a good idea with only very minor consequences. He is known to have pressed for striking Iran for a long time. I understand that there was a meeting last year when the Joint Chiefs, on Gate's and Rice's initiative, took Bush to the tank and showed him the (catastrophic) scenario. He then took a step back. The argument from Rice/ Gates against striking Iran was at the time that Iran had 'escalation dominance', meaning that if the US attacked, Iran could control the events in the aftermath and that therefore such an attack is infeasible (more here).

Cheney has managed to undermine that counter argument with the argument that Iran's capabilities can be overcome, making a strike on Iran 'feasible' again. He is, with the help of Petraeus, trying to prove his point. Key to this was the 'Surge' strategy. It was not just aimed on restoring order in Baghdad and the Sunni areas but far more ambitious. It had to be open-ended to allow Petraeus, Cheney's ally in the Baghdad, to attack Iranian ability to strike back. Those repeated low-key strikes on 'rogue militias' are in fact direct attacks on key Mahdi Army personnel, Sadr's people, in order to weaken them and damage their (and Iran's) ability to hit the US in case the US decide to hit Iran.

Sadr is highly popular among the Iraqi Shiites, much more so than fellow Shiite Maliki. The Shiite represent some 70% of the Iraqi population, some 70+% of which support Sadr. What that means is that in order to hit Iran, the Cheneyites are picking a fight with half of Iraq, just as if they didn't have enough trouble on their hands already with Afghanistan and the Taliban and in Iraq with the Sunnis and Al Qaeda. Why, they think everything is swell and they're winning!
It is probable that a US attack on Iran would at the least 'strain' the rule of Maliki, who will also be severely damaged by his ties to the Americans. If he signs that carte blanche deal with the US, and the US strike, he will be seen as their enabler. In all likelihood Maliki attacked Basra last month in order to save Sadr, rather than to fight him. What he and his Iranian friends wanted to do was probably an effort to thwart later plans for a US attack. In case the US attack Iran, repercussions will hit Baghdad, with the fall of the Maliki regime and intra-Shiite fighting among the nicer prospects.

EDIT: The very much uglier prospects involve that this will be a major political event in the Islamic world that will have profound repercussions in the entire Middle East. But the key domino probably is Pakistan. Pakistan already has the bomb, and delivery systems, and it seems that the fervour and extremism of the early Iranian revolutionaries who overthrew the Shah has burnt itself down to at least a significant degree. And certainly there seems to be strong circles there who are in favour of stability. So at least as it's presently constituted, one might not like the idea of an Iran with nukes but I don't know that if it came to pass anyone should feel that an apocalypse was necessarily imminent either.
On the other hand though I don't know if that wouldn't be the case if Musharaff was overthrown and radical Islamists took over in Pakistan. Just how many assassination attempts has Musharaff survived, many of which seem to have been inside-job attempts involving his own security and perhaps military people? I'm not saying Pakistan is going to fall if it happens, but if anti-US public sentiment, inflamed by an attack on Iran, or some such aggravation, were to force the government to stop aiding the US/NATO war in Afghanistan and stop operations against al-Qaeda, Afghanistan and the tribal territories would become a formidable Jihadi base. Then Pakistan, and its nuclear weapons, would be at serious risk. Oh never mind, it ain't gonna happen, because Cheney wishes and assures it won't./EDIT

Bush can order a 'limited strike' on Iran whenever he wants to. He has authority to do so after congress foolishly designated the Iranian Republican Guards a terrorist organisation. He can then claim this is part of the war on terror. Following the same logic he could order a predator drone to be sent out to blow up a 'suspect PIRA safe house' in Belfast tomorrow morning.

 

Now ragusa, why would you use a recon/surveillance drone(MQ-1 Predator) when we have an attack drone(MQ-9 Reaper) custom made for that mission?

MQ-1 Predator
135mph max speed
455 mile range
25,000' max alttitude
2 hardpoints
max weapon payload about 400 lbs
only weapons use Hellfire & Stinger missiles

MQ-9 Reaper
250mph
3680 mile range
52,000' max alttitude
6 hardpoints
max weapon payload 3,000 lb
set up for: Sidewinders, Stingers, Hellfires, AMRAAMs, Mavericks, Paveways, & JDAMs

Considering that a lot of the newest airforce plans call for flights of Reapers to get enemy radar & missile sites to paint/shoot at them before they are destroyed by nearby stealth aircraft, it seems like a good use of a relatively unexpensive, unmanned aircraft.

 

Marty's right. What did we develop the MQ-9 for, if not to conduct air strikes in the UK?

 

We can only conduct air-strikes on the UK on the 4th of july to remind them that they used to be the badguys (Bad, Bad Martaug! No cookie for you!)

Actually. i think there so we can send airstrikes against all the liberals in california(oh, i'm going straight to he!! for that one!!)

 

That's OK, Cali would more than likely be the safest place to be in that case, judging by GWB's record; they'd probably miss, hit a Muslim wedding, or only hit Arnold. And he's invincible....

 

I think they are programmed to not target republicans aren't they

But all of this is off-topic so before a mod comes in & cracks us across the knuckles back to the topic.

IMHO, if turkey was to attack the kurds & the iranians were to offer aid, it is possible that some of their neighbor like azerbaijan, turkmenistan & pakistan may see it as an opportunity to claim some land from iran. Also pakistan may not like the idea of being squeezed between 2 nuclear powers. That part of the world has so many groups that hate so many others for so many reasons that you need a program just to keep up.

 

Obviously they are not "programmed" to target Bin Laden either....When GWB claimed that there was a "wanted poster out West with dead or alive on it", he must have meant the mostly "alive" part of that poster for BL.

But let's not mince words here, since any attack on Iran would have little to do with the topic of Iraq anyway. The topic is "Solving the Mess in Iraq," not making an even bigger mess of things by attacking Iran....