The Bush regime seems ever more intent on attacking Iran, using the same program of lies, deceptions, misinformation, propagandizing by major media, and recklessness that led up to the present disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are losing these two wars badly, for the same reason and by the same means that undid our efforts in Viet Nam - another war based on lies. Iraq and Afghanistan are what Viet Nam was: guerilla warfare which the United States military establishment has proven powerless against. War with Iran will be no different and very different at the same time. The US is now fighting a war on two fronts, a fool's mission in anybody's book. If we attack Iran we will be facing a military disaster of unparalleled severity, but not for the reasons given in the largely clueless press. And not according to the scenarion of Global War that these idiots are trying to sell us.
No. It will be far different and, in the end, will probably return an outcome that the Neocons and their Nazi-like Zionist colleagues would never have envisioned. But some explanation is in order.
For one thing, a geurilla war is not over until the guerillas win. It may take years as it did in Nam and as it is in Iraq, but the outcome is ceratin: just look at the history. For another, we know that wars cannot be won with airpower alone; there have to be boots on the ground. But where will they come from? Doesn't it stand to reason that if the United States army faces Iranian forces over the extensive border with Iraq, that the Iraqi freedom fighters won't double and redouble their efforts to eject this occupying force from their land? Prime Minister el Maliki, the head of our own puppet government in Iraq wants us to leave. The people want us to leave; the vast majority of American people want us to leave. And everyone is tired of the double talk: "we're winning, so we have to stay; we're not winning, so we have to stay." It's an insane tautology that reasoning people will not buy.
The next thing to think about is how the sides will stack up. The US/Israeli coalition of evil, with some interest allegedly shown by Great Britain, France, and Italy, on one side; Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and al Sadr's insurgents in Iraq, on the other, it will be a Chinese fire drill of monumental proportions - and we can't win against that kind of opposition. We have already wasted too many lives and treasure in the region for the American people to stand for any more. That is in addition to the strategic and tactical problems we would face.
It is a foregone conclusion that Israel would be hard hit in any retaliatory effort on the part of Iran, especially if Israel initiates an attack against them. A very risky matter for Israel, as neither the CIA or Mossad actually knows where the Iranian missile bases and military installations actually are. There seems little doubt that Israel is counting on American support in the proposed military adventure and, for reasons already given, that is not a given.
Another question; What will Russia do in the case of an attack upon Iran? They have economic ties and significant interests in Teheran; will they just sit back and allow Israel and the United States to attack? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. Aren't the idiots who are allegedly planning this insane adventure taking the Russian question into consideration? They have been wrong about everything they've said about Iraq; why should anyone think they have suddenly become proficient in the strategic arts, both diplomatic and military? There is much that they seem oblivious to that it is frightening. Or it should be.
One thing, concerning Iraq and the desire of the Iraqis for American troops to leave, that nobody so far has given any thought to: There is one man in Iraq who, by just saying the word, could bring the entire population of Iraq into the insurgent camp in a major effort to oust the occupying forces: The Ayatollah el Sistani. He is the spiritual leader of the Iraqi people and if he tells them to rise up and throw the invader out, the Iraqis will risa as one and our already overtaxed military will face near anihilation.
Then there is the question of where such an ill-advised military adventure will lead. Some feel that it will be the start of World War III and that the United States will be attacked. Not a very happy outcome in either case, but I believe the possibility of escalation to these levels is rather remote.
For one thing, neither the United States or Israel would be able to go it alone; the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon was a defeat for the Israelis, and Iraq has been the same for the United States for over six years. Each military establishment took on single nations and fared badly; both taking on the combined forces of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians, would lead to disastrous consequences for them. And lest we forget, Israel and the Unuited States have had control of the skies in the Middle East all along, but the bloodshed continues. The most likely outcome of all this would be greatly protracted guerilla warfare against greater odds than either the United States or Israel have ever faced, or even thought of facing. We might also consider what Egypt would do.
An attack on the United States? By whom? Iran would have no interest in doing that; in fact, an attack on the US would be counter-productive from their standpoint. We have a loud, vocal, and ever-expanding anti-war movement in this country. Should our leaders step over the line and go ahead with an attack on Iran they would risk a whole bucketful of "unintended consequences" right here in their own backyard. The people will stand for just-so-much and the needle is rapidly approaching red line.
Europe is much closer to the action and a war spreading to that continent is far more likely than any threat to the United States. But the Europeans still have vivid memories of World War II and would have no interest in inviting more of the same by entering into a coalition with Israel and the United States. France, Italy, Germany, and Great Britain, may ally themselves with us in voting sanctions against Iran in the United Nations, but we have already seen how willing they are to commit troops: not very. The Brits, who actually sent forces to Iraq, have brought most of their military personnel out and have no plans for returning anytime soon, perhaps when elephants fly.
For these and other reasons too numerous to go into here, an attack on Iran would be stupid in the extreme. Our leadership ( if that's what you call it )is playing Checkers, and not very well, while the other team is playing Chess; two very different games though the board is the same. And if you accept the Checkers/Chess analogy, then remember this: THEY INVENTED CHESS!
No comments:
Post a Comment