On 12 Jan 2005 22:54:43 GMT, disseminator <disseminator@bogus.com>
wrote:

Syria will have to be dealt with eventually. IMO, Iran is vulnerable
to non-military intervention after we get Iraq back on its feet. (In
fact if we win in Iraq we will only have to stand around and wait for
Iran to destabilize.)

That's what civvie neoconservatives are saying.
Much the same rosy scenario they painted for
Iraq. Fact is that we will be rivalling Iran
for political influence in Iraq indefinitely
now. We won't be in any position to destabilze
the Iranian Mullahs until we stabilize Iraq and
our biggest problems come from Sunni....not
somewhat Iranian freindly Shia insurgents.

Okay, to start with Iraqis and Iranians do _not_ get along. This is
one of the major reasons Muquata Al Sadar was never able to get going
- he was obviously sponsored by Iran. Iran tried and failed to gain
influence through an armed militia because they knew that they are
hated by Iraqis.

BTW, the Iranian Shia are looking more and more to Sistaini for
leadership in preference to their own discredited government. Hint:
the Iranian nuclear crisis is a political ploy whose primary purpose
is to distract the Iranian people. Last year the religious rulers in
Iran banned every political candidate that did not agree with their
policies and as a result the Iranian government is no longer seen as
legitimate by the Iranian people - they need to keep the people's
attention focused externally before they find their heads on pikes.

This is a situation we can take advantage of.. In fact I think that
we have been playing the situation perfectly by not doing anything to
provoke Iran (and refusing to be provoked by them) but still making
sure that the Iranian government policies cause negative results for
the Iranian people.

I think the A-teams are being considered for low-profile
hits on Syrian based insurgents without risking
destabilizing Bashar Assad's government in lieu of
a worse one....political considerations you hear
tell of.

SOF have their place but this is not one of them. Since these are
extremely risky operations (and impossible to hide anyway) you don't
get any real benefit from using them as opposed to a PGM. Besides we
will start with political and economic pressure first.

These are not 'ambitions.' In fact I find the implication that the
military wants a decade of war as insulting and totally out of touch
with what motivates people in the Service.

Myers doesn't make the policy. Generals don't generally
determine the policy that results in wars nowadays. Civilian
neoconservatives have been proposing more Mideast intervention
throughout the '90s and a few of us have opposed it throughout
the '90s but I didn't start the thread to bore you with that.
The buck always stops with the pols!

This was not policy - he was predicting the future. He was warning
people like myself (who on 10 September 2001 regarded his primary
military mission to be training the people who will replace me) that
we faced a future of war and that there is a real chance that I will
not survive to collect my retirement.

Germany and Japan were more afraid of the Soviets than
of us....Iraq will be harder and take longer than much of
the country were led to believe....A failure to properly
communicate on the administration's part.

I would say the blame should be shared with the news media. I am
starting to wind down my tour in Iraq (I go home in less than a month)
and I have been less than impressed with the quality of the news
coverage. Prior to Iraq leadership in both the civilian side and the
military were saying that this would be a minimum 5 year project
(nation building takes copious amounts of time) but the media was more
interested in headlines than analysis. Over here in Iraq I see a vast
difference between what the media presents and 'ground truth.' The
media is focusing on superficial headlines and ignoring anything that
does not involve 1) US dead, 2) Iraqis civilians killed by US, and 3)
any explosion close to the Green Zone.

They ignore completely the fact that life in Iraq is normal for 90% of
the population. They ignore the fact that Iraq has been experiencing
an unprecedented economic boom. They ignored completely that during
the siege of Najif the interim council (selected by the Iraqis FYI)
effectively provided the political leadership and supervision that
drove the military operations.

They ignore completely the fact that enemy activity has dropped off
significantly. They ignore the fact that enemy targeting has switched
from direct attacks on US and Iraqi military to sporadic harassing
attacks on us but the majority being traditional terrorist attacks on
police, civilians, and infrastructure.

And what really gripes me is that they ignore completely just how many
Iraqi civilians are killed every day by the enemy.

If I only had access to what the news media's was reporting about
Iraq, I would probably think we are losing also.

Agreed....A matter of tactics. Let's not lose sight
of the importance of the Pacific basin region that our
folks fought to secure it's future and our future for.

The pacific basin is a secondary theatre that will not decide the
outcome of the War On Terror. As a result it gets the minimum
essential military resources necessary to maintain stability.

The center of gravity for the War On Terror is the Middle East.

Endless wars with Mideastern Muslims may not always
be unavoidable or in our best interests. I think it
fair to our solders be selfish rather than altruistic
when it comes to choosing conflicts and every factor
should be considered....Bottom line is that it has
to be worth the risk before the gamble.

As is said in the military: "Remember that the enemy always gets a
vote."

Picking and choosing your wars is a luxury you rarely have.

That is why I want the people who do determine
policy to account for every reason for their
decision to go to war. That scrutiny is my
responsibility as someone too old to serve.

IMO the media let the American people down by producing headlines and
sound bytes without any real analysis. For example - most people who
are in military leadership positions can articulate how Iraq fits into
our grand strategy for winning the War On Terror - but even though
this is no secret - the media has ignored this in favor of 30 second
stuff that will sell advertising time.

IOW
The draft is not yet politic for the war in Iraq nor
Iran nor Syria which is probably why we'll avoid
all out conflicts with the latter two....contrary to
the implications related in Myers dated announcement.

I'd like to think the political powers that be were
smart enough to save the draft for the defence of Taiwan
for a safe and stable neighboring Pacific Basin region.

It is not that the draft is not 'politic' - it simply makes no sense
from a military point of view. The Army we have cannot function with
draftees.

--

Duty First!