Where is Bush's Next Target?

Its going to be Iran and Syria. His failures in Iraq are directed to Irans 'meddling'. I think its time to stop blaming others for ones ****ups.

 

Memory serves bad. I tought only the later parts of the war, which is in the Iraq territory

Most of the resistance occured a while after the invasion, when they understand the US understanding of "democracy" is not that good.

Also there is a different situation with US. Iranians will be more willing to kill Americans than Iraqis. They will fight with their whole heart. US can never expect to invade Iran, IMHO. As I said earlier, they could only raze it with bombs.

 

Well said, Montresor, I could not agree more.

As LNT commented, both countries are run by men who have more guts than sense. It's a bad combination.

 

It may have something to do with a US flag being wrapped around Saddams statue, the images of Saddam's head superimposed onto a scantily clad womans body on billboards, US troops proclaiming "We own Baghdad" etc etc. Perhaps if more respect was shown, Iraq wouldn't be in such a mess?

Back on topic...

If the US attacks Iran, then Iraq's Shia's will not be too happy. It will make matters worse... if you can imagine such a thing.

 

Nowhere. Bush will not be able to start another fight. Our military is already spread thin and does not have the manpower or resources for another conflict. Thank's to the cutbacks of previous administrations the US military has only enough resources for one major and one minor conflict -- Iraq and Afganistan. Combine these troop commitments with our commitment to have forces ready in support of our many treaties and we simply cannot extend the military any more.

The US may be able to do a bomb or missile attack if sorely pressed, but not another ground engagement. Even with a total recall of reservists and reinstitution of a draft we cannot support another major conflict before Bush is out of power. We simply have to pull out of Afganistan or Iraq (or both) in order to launch a campaign anywhere else.

The only place I can see where the US has forces in place to conduct harassment operations (bombing and support for other nation's ground troops) is North Korea -- we are required by our treaty to have a carrier battlegroup and Marine Amphibious Force close by. However, that is not enough airpower or troops to give even moderate hopes of a victory without significant help from other nations (especially South Korea).

'Where next' is entirely moot. The logistics of the matter does not really support any scenario.

 

T2 - It could be just a lot of saber rattling, and warnings. But it doesn't appear to take much to provoke Iran at this point; in fact they seem eager for a confrontation with the US. The way the adminstration is talking, they might just get it.

 

I'm really not sure where you were going with that Chandos.

Several years ago the Commadant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, stood in from of the Senate and warned the ability of the military to engage on two fronts was gone. He was fired by Clinton within a week (he was considered to no longer be a team player). Unfortunately, Krulak was right.

Iran is pushing because they know the US would be very hard pressed to bring the conflict across the border. We are not negotiating from a position of strength with either Iran or North Korea (or anyone else for that matter) and they know it.

That other, smaller, countries are pushing is an indication the leader of those countries realize the US is not in a position to push back.

The increase in troop force mentioned would simply discourage Iran from invading. Another 20,000 troops is enough for defense, but not enough to go on the offensive across borders. As such, the 'where next' is still moot.

 

I said:

You said:

It would seem we are saying something similar. Nevertheless, Hadley's point is curious, because he is suggesting that there are other motives for the planned troop build-up other than the escalating violence in Iraq. If you and I can both figure out that Iran is easily provoked right now, do you think those in the White House can? They aren't especially smart, but...

Oh, and yes, please, blame Clinton for the mess that Bush created.

[ January 15, 2007, 20:46: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos, I have repeatedly said on these boards I disagree with the Iraqi invasion. I have rested that egg completely on Bush and his cabinet (I believe the Joint Chiefs were even against it). However, the reduction in forces was entirely Clinton's doing and IMO he went too far down the reduction path. Granted, we should never have needed to be able to fight on more than two fronts (or even one major and one minor conflict).

As far as who is smart in government, I agree with Carter's impression back when he was Governor of Alabama -- Washington DC is not filled with intellectuals. After all, these are the same people who could not understand that when they took out Saddam they also removed ALL the civic infrastructure in the country (electricity, sewer, water, police, etc.). Both sides of the aisle are guilty in that. I really don't know if the representatives (any and all of them) in Washington DC understand the world knows the US military is stretched a little thin.

 

T2 - It seems we are in agreement, on some parts of this at least. But the US can bring the confrontation across the border with cruise missiles and war planes, then dare Iran to try and cross the border into Iraq. IMO, it would be a diaster for both sides, but one that they both maybe contemplating.

Nevertheless, something needs to be done regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities and its open threats against Israel. And if they are coming across the border and killing Americans - then what?

Edit - Ah, I ran across this just a moment ago:

[ January 15, 2007, 21:04: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Having thousands of troops ready in Iraq and more moving in seems awfully convinient from the point of view of Iran, doesn't it?

As to nukes...

 

The U.S. would not use a Patriot missile to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. The Patriot is an anti-missile missile. Specifically, it was developed to shoot down ballistic missile while in flight. If we were going to bomb nuclear facilities, chances are we would use laser guided smart bombs, or, if it was in a location where there wouldn't be many civilian casaulties, some good ol' Tomahawks.

That having been said, I agree with the people who think it is extremely unlikely that Bush wants another war on his plate. He's already pretty much hit lame-duck status, and there's no way the country would go along with another front opening up on the GWoT, unless there is another terrorist strike within the U.S.

While I do not put it out of the realm of possibility, the public would be far less supportive of another war, and more importantly, he does not have a Republican Congress to rubber stamp his decisions anymore. In fact, quite the opposite is true. More and more Republicans are turning against Bush's views on the war. While the presidential canidates for '08 are still very much up in the air, there's no way a Republican is going to run on a "stay the course" platform at this point, so Bush has even lost support from his Republican base.

 

No but the patriot missile systems serve as protection if Iran should decide to retaliate in some form the bombings on their facilities (which I would find quite likely).

 

I take it you're unaware that American--or at least American-backed--incursions have been made from Iraq into Iran?

Go here, hit ctrl-f, search for 'cross-border forays'.

Now, if Hersh knew about this back in November (or earlier), it's certain the Iranians were likewise aware.

Morgie is quite right about the Patriot--it's only necessary if one is expecting missile attack. In other words, if one is expect Iran to be lobbing missiles into Iraq.

[ January 17, 2007, 01:02: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

I wouldn't put a war in Iran outside the realm of possibility. Not sure whether Bush is seeking one or not (he'd have to be pretty ****ing stupid to, but that's also not outside the realm of possibility), but even so, things are set up so that there might just be one anyway.

Iran likes their nuclear program. Israel has threatened to nuke their nuclear program. Should that happen, well, things get way way screwed, and I'm sure that I don't have to ellaborate much there...

(btw - I hear that they're moving the Doomsday Clock - quite appropriate, methinks...)

 

There is very little Iran could do if their facilities were bombed, it would certainly make them even more hostile and possibly launch missiles at Israel but beyoned that their military equipment and capability is inferior to both US and Israel. What it would do though is destabilize Iraq even further and quite likely topple the current government and set the final push towards civil war.

The Iranian nuclear programme would be very easy to deal with by simple bombings were it not for Iraq. The Iraqi instability makes Iran more bold in their moves and they know they now have some kind of an advantage and increased room to manouver. However the US have really no need to strike Iran when it can be done through assisting Israel to do it for them.

 

Iran could cut off oil supplies, no? IIRC they've threatened to destroy the region's oil supplies with their missiles if attacked - a pretty big threat if they've got the balls to back it up. Plus they're in a good position to block the route of oil tankers (see link below).

Here's an interesting article I stumbled across: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Favors_Asymmetric_Strategy_In_Joust_With_US_999.html

Iran sounds like they could create enough havoc to force other nations to invade them. I'm not convinced that Iran would lose such a war.

 

Just a thought, talk about cleaning out Baghdad with more troops and then staying in place. Setting up antimissle weapons. Aircraft group sent in. Mistake making leaders on both sides, S*** hits the fan!
I think almost everyone is underestimating where this is going. I am afraid Bush sees this as his last chance to "win" his war.

In the previous thread Ragusa made some good points. I did not get accross though that I thought this cycle is going to continue until the final blow up unless islamic violence stops and we (the US) can be convinced we are safe. Unless poking the US with a stick stops being popular people like Bush will always have a reason for what they do and say, in their opinion not often mine. In short both sides are using the other for blame as an excuse for war or conflict. This is not grasping at straws when trying to state "we" feel that radical islam is just as much to blame if not more so for the mess the middle east is in now. Remember Iraq invaded 2 countries and that was what got us involved in the first place even if the US managed to mess up to much to be tolerated by the voting public here and the world in general.
I hope this is better said this time and a bow to the ones that english is not a native language who express themselves better than I do!

 

Terrorism. Iran's 'deterrance' stems from the open secret that it can and will conduct terrorist activities against American emplacements the world over, if given cause.