[dkstories] Analysis

[C James]

Hi James.

In the discussion about the attitude of the republican party and his management of the fight against terrorism, I found an interesting article in the last issue (september 06) of the "Atlantic", which doesnt directly concern the subject of your discussions above, but could be a part of a better attitude of the democrats (??) :

extract of Atlantic online :

"Declaring Victory

The United States is succeeding in its struggle against terrorism. The time has come to declare the war on terror over, so that an even more effective military and diplomatic campaign can begin.

by James Fallows

FOLLOW-UP Can We Still Declare Victory?

Yes. James Fallows explains why the foiled airline bombing plot actually strengthens the argument for declaring victory in the war on terror

by James Fallows

INTERVIEWS Endgaming the Terror War

James Fallows talks about the surprising strides we've made against al-Qaeda

 

I had a look at Atlantic, and the article is for subscibers only, thoguh the follow-ups are avaialoble.

http://www.theatlantic.com/

 

The problem with the article is that (based only on the folow-ups) it does not present a coherent reason why doing as they suggest would actually be beneficial.

 

The problem, really, is that so far the War on Terror has NOT achieved it's goals. "Declaring Victory" would be every bit as hollow and foolish (and probably even worse) than Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" debacle. The writer of the article makes my point for me: Iraq had seen the end of major combat ONLY in the sense of conventional warfare. It had only just begun the asymmetrical and insurgency warfare that has marked it since. The same is far more true of the War on Terror, which to an even larger degree is an asymmetrical campaign.

 

I said above that the War on Terror has not achieved it's goals. It's goals, after all, were to vastly diminish not only terrorism, but the underlying dynamic that creates it: in this case, Islamic Fascism. The root causes, such as the hate taught in so many of the Islamic schools (Medresses) in the region, is what gives us a continuing supply of deranged fanatics, and while that dynamic is at play we simply will not be safe, ever. Declaring the war over is not going to help defeat the causes of terror (causes which the Bush admin has failed abysmally to address in a significant way).

 

It is also utterly wrong to say that Al Qaeda has lost the ability to deliver a mass-casualty attack on American soil. Three times (perhaps four, as I believe the Anthrax to Be their work), they (or allied/precursor organizations) have gotten as far as an actual operational attempt, and we got lucky twice (the '93 World Trace Center bombing, which nearly succeeded in bringing down a fully occupied tower which would have had a death toll of over 15,000) and the "millennium plot", foiled, by chance, by an alert customs agent and an inept terrorist. only 9-11 succeeded largely according to plan. What, really, was the operational concept behind 9-11? It was to put 19 guys, armed with box-cutters, on US airliners, a few of them with rudimentary flight training. That's it; 19 guys with box-cutters. That's ALL Al Qaeda did. Now, is anyone going to seriously argue that Al Qaeda no longer has the ability to match that operational ability? If they are, they are blind. The only thing that has changed is that, theoretically, it's harder to get weapons onto an airliner, and the passengers and crews are unlikely to co-operate. The underlying ability to deploy 19 guys with box cutters has NOT changed. Every single Al Qaeda operation since has actually been more difficult operationally due to the need to acquire, transport, and deploy weapons and explosives.

 

9/11 was true asymmetrical warfare, and it used our own infrastructure against us. Heck, we even supplied the pilot training and the box cutters. Is anyone foolish enough to think that no one in Al Qaeda will ever think up a way to use our infrastructure against us again? It's easy, and we remain vulnerable. Just off the top of my head, some attacks requiring NO resources or hard to obtain weaponry: Use syringes inside of gloves to contaminate foodstuffs in supermarkets with E-coli bacteria, resulting in mass panic and disruption of the food supply. #2 build an RPG with a shaped-charge warhead (easy to do from model rocket components, a tin can, and some home-made high explosive) and target a fully-loaded LPG tanker in a major port. The resulting detonation would make 9-11 look like a walk in the park. #3 use ham radio equipment, with a few minor mods, to spoof air traffic radar, jam air-traffic control frequencies, and use spoofed ATC commands to mis-direct airliners during poor visibility. Even if no damage is done (highly unlikely) it would cause massive disruptions and economic damage from just the news of the incident. #4 sink a passenger liner quickly via capsize: exceedingly easy to do if you know where and how to hit it (I can think of several ways to easily breech several watertight compartments on one side only) and the resulting death toll would be in the thousands. #5, cripple the US fuel supply, by causing mass damage to our very vulnerable oil refineries. A few guys with rifles and incendiary bullets would suffice, as it's easy to identify the vulnerable spots to hit. Hit the ten biggest refineries, and if you take out just half of the targets, the economic damage and societal disruption would be incalculable. #6, use cheap laser pointers, in a bundled array and aimed with an attached spotter scope, to blind aircraft crews during final approach. There is also no reason why several of the above scenarios could not be simultaneously executed.

 

I could go on and on. If I can think of these things off the top of my head, all of them operational concepts that don't require hard to get items (everything I listed above can be either bought, or made from, things that are available on the retail market) and do not require much training or education, then it would be easy enough to come up with even more devastating scenarios if they put their minds to it, even if we foolishly assume that they can't smuggle or acquire more specialized and capable equipment.

 

Our modern society is incredibly fragile, and very vulnerable to infrastructure disruption. We simply cannot secure everything. Therefor, we need to prevent the attacks, and while counter-intel operations can prevent some (such as the recent British effort) they won't stop them all, and are at best a stop-gap. The only real answer is to stop it at the source: end the brainwashing that occurs in the radical medresses which is the source of the manpower that the terrorists rely on. Those radical schools are a clear and present danger to western society (as well as to their own people) and until now they have been largely ignored by both the media and the politicians. Until they, the primary root dynamic cause of terrorism, are stopped, we have not won, and indeed cannot win in any sense of the word. Left alone, the dynamic will continue to expand it's influence, and thus the danger. Declaring victory now would be, truly and literally, self-defeating in every sense of the term.

 

As a caveat, I do agree with a few points, such as the absurd amounts of money spent (largely ineffectually) on some security issues, but making sensible changes is not predicated on any declaration of victory.

[old bob]

I had a look at Atlantic, and the article is for subscibers only, thoguh the follow-ups are avaialoble.

http://www.theatlantic.com/

The problem with the article is that (based only on the folow-ups) it does not present a coherent reason why doing as they suggest would actually be beneficial.

Hi James

I just suscrived to Atlantic and expect the confirmation. From what i red in the european press, the suggestions of Fallows are much more subtile. I shall send you the full text as soon I get it

old Bob

[old bob]

Hi James

I hope you Email is back and you got the text "Fallows".

BTW, do you follow day by day as I do the next "happenings" between Israel, Libanon, Syria and Iran ?

I suppose you know where my "heart is inclined". Hopefully the israelian soldiers will success in changing the heads of the army. Where are the successors of Moshe Dayan ? :2hands: I'm just astonished by the silence of the US government. What do you think ?

I'm waiting on the next chapters of DOT. DK could perhaps integrate the present situation in his story ?

Old Bob

[C James]

Hi James

I hope you Email is back and you got the text "Fallows".

BTW, do you follow day by day as I do the next "happenings" between Israel, Libanon, Syria and Iran ?

I suppose you know where my "heart is inclined". Hopefully the israelian soldiers will success in changing the heads of the army. Where are the successors of Moshe Dayan ? :2hands: I'm just astonished by the silence of the US government. What do you think ?

I'm waiting on the next chapters of DOT. DK could perhaps integrate the present situation in his story ?

Old Bob

 

I follow global geopolitics quite closely, especially hotspots such as the Middle East.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "where your heart is inclined"? I have major mixed feelings about Moshe Dayan. He had a great operational flair, and an ability to get the job done quickly, but he had his flaws, too. He was certainly not a modest man, and his later political views caused many headaches for the Israeli government, especially his later opposition to the Israeli capture of the Golan heights (which he had, ironically, earlier been attempting to take credit for) ignoring the military fact that without the Golan, Israel would have likely lost the 1972 Yom Kippur war. But, the blackest mark on his record was the 1972 Yom Kippur war, where his personal arrogance was in large part responsible for Isriel being caught flat-footed, and thus coming perilously close to losing. He also fell apart in the first days of said war, and at times had to be muzzled by PM Mier.

 

Dayan was also the main force behind the unilateral withdrawal idea when it began, decades ago. Basically this is the same "plan" that Olmert implemented in Gaza and was preparing to do in areas of the West Bank. It failed disastrously, and will probably contribute to Olmert's fall, but it's certainly a dead idea now.

 

I too, though, hope for change in Israel as I think they bungled the recent war very badly. The Hezbollah stockpile of missiles in Lebanon was no secret: I've been aware of it for over two years, at least to the extent that I was certain it was in excess of 5000 missiles. Olmert's government evidently had no contingency plans in place, as Isriel's initial actions were very much add-libbed.

 

More to the point, I made a prediction two days before the war (though after the kidnappings) of what Hezbollah's agenda was: they wanted the war, and their operation was designed to cause an Israeli attack. To understand this, we first need to understand what Hezbollah is: It's formation was directed, funded, and orchestrated by the Iranian Intelligence service. It is not an ally of Iran, it is an organ of Iran, and, like Islamic Jihad (the organization) it is run by and controlled by the Iranian Guardian Council, via the intelligence and foreign operations arm of the Pasdaran (revolutionary guard).

 

Iran and Syria are allied, and have long co-operated regarding Lebanon, including Syrian support for Hezbollah. (an interesting side note: this is one of many examples that prove the foolishness of the theory that Sunnis and Shia do not co-operate). Syria, until recently, controlled all of Lebanon via a puppet government in Beirut. The "Lebanese Spring" forced a Syrian withdrawal and the birth (or, re-birth) of a Lebanese Democracy.

 

This event was a direct threat to Iran (which has it's own troubles with internal pro-democracy movements) Syria, and above all, Hezbollah. If the Lebanese government continued to gain strength, the day would come when it would evict Hezbollah from it's territory. Iran also fears an Israeli attack on it's nuclear program in the near future (I earnestly hope they are correct in that assessment, but I can't figure out how Isriel could accomplish it short of a nuclear strike, given basing and range limitations). Iran is trying to fence Isriel in by presenting it with threats on it's borders, and they are succeeding.

 

So, the strategic imperative from Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah's position was the same: Lebanon's government must be undermined. What better way to do this than to trick Israel into doing the job for them? Look at the results on internal Lebanese politics: The Central government has been shown to be helpless, and Hezbollah has had it's influence and position much strengthened.

 

The end result so far is that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah won this war, because they achieved their strategic goal. What no one in power seemed to realize was that it's strategic goal wasn't Israel, but Lebanon. I'm absolutely astounded that the Israelis didn't see this in advance, as it was glaringly obvious what the other sides strategic imperative was, and thus there strategy was largely obvious too. (one of the first rules of strategic analysis is to always look at the enemy's strategic position through THEIR eyes.)

 

Israel played right into their hands. It's initial air campaign was exceedingly poorly planned and executed, and it's ground ops were worse. Instead of a fast seizure of a zone north of the Littani via helicopter assault, and then a move north with main forces to meet it (thus trapping most of Hezbollah if done right, because Hezbollah did indeed prove itself stupid enough to fight for ground if pressed) they attacked piecemeal, and only succeeded in undermining the Lebanese government. The worst part is that Hezbollah was not annihilated, it wasn't even severely damaged. The Israelis initially counted on the air campaign to cripple an enemy adept at hiding, and it failed miserably. Hezbollah is now re-arming and rebuilding, and it's power in Lebanon has been greatly enhanced.

 

The US government IMHO did initially try to give Israel the time it needed, until it was clear that the Israelis had bungled the operation and no amount of time was likely to help. Finally, IMHO, the US put forward the UN cease-fire, which at least has one benefit: It's another UN mandate (the disarmament of Hezbollah, included at US insistence) that will, like most others before it, be ignored and never implemented by the toothless, spineless, and useless UN. (the only benefit is that it will serve as another stellar example of how useless the UN is). I hope I'm wrong on this, but given that there has been a UN force in Lebanon for 30 years, and that there has long been a UN resolution mandating the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the UN has done precisely nothing, I doubt it.

 

I'm no fan of the US government's behavior regarding Israel, especially the institutionalized foolishness inside the career state department that the solution to the middle east it to press Israel for more and more concessions. I fear that this side won out in the end in this case.

 

So, indeed, for their own sake, I hope the Israelis do have some major changes, including of their PM. Presently, I think Benjamin Netanyaho has a darn good chance of becoming PM again within six weeks. I don't put blame on the Israeli general staff (with the possible exception of the head of the Air Force), though: this bungle seems clearly to have occurred at the political level (though it probably includes the chief of staff). I note that the Israeli solders are protesting the political decision makers, not their generals, so they seem to share this impression.

[old bob]

I follow global geopolitics quite closely, especially hotspots such as the Middle East.

I am not sure what you mean by "where your heart is inclined"? I note that the Israeli solders are protesting the political decision makers, not their generals, so they seem to share this impression.

 

Hi James

I will send you the text on your new adress and I hope your comment about it.

About "where your heart is inclined" :

I'm jew but nor a political sionist. In 1948, I was 19 old, as a member of a left sionist group (Ashomer Azair) and, with a friend who was 4 year older and an swiss officer, we studied the possibility to go to israel and fight. He went but my parents implored me not to go. I staid in Geneva and my friend was killed.

When I worked 1972 in Algeria, the political "commissair" a member of the family of Boumedien, the former leader of Algeria, agreed that I was "clean" and not involved with Israel, so I was "accepted" in Algeria despite my "race".

So what I said means that I am on the side of Israel but dont agree with all their political decisions.

As far as Im refering to Dayan, It means that I approuved his behaviour as a miltary man and his strategic decisions but non all his political. For me, he is just a symbol of the will of the old pioneer mind. Israel has the right to defend itself with the best ways, but the answer to destroy South Libanon by bombing was not the best decision. On the other way, the army was used to lead police-actions instead of real military actions, as it did in the past and IMO the logistics and the way they did it in Libanon was a wrong decision.

The main problem is Iran and it can only be solved by a clear policy of the US governement, what brings us to the "Fallows" text. The real point : does the people in Washington know exactly what they want and does the folk in the States know what it will cost ? It is the same situation as in France and GB in the thirtees against the nazis. If you are not ready to fight now it will cost much more later !!!.

Expecting your opinion here or on mail...

Old bob

[C James]

Hi James

I will send you the text on your new adress and I hope your comment about it.

About "where your heart is inclined" :

I'm jew but nor a political sionist. In 1948, I was 19 old, as a member of a left sionist group (Ashomer Azair) and, with a friend who was 4 year older and an swiss officer, we studied the possibility to go to israel and fight. He went but my parents implored me not to go. I staid in Geneva and my friend was killed.

When I worked 1972 in Algeria, the political "commissair" a member of the family of Boumedien, the former leader of Algeria, agreed that I was "clean" and not involved with Israel, so I was "accepted" in Algeria despite my "race".

So what I said means that I am on the side of Israel but dont agree with all their political decisions.

As far as I'm referring to Dayan, It means that I approved his behaviour as a military man and his strategic decisions but non all his political. For me, he is just a symbol of the will of the old pioneer mind. Israel has the right to defend itself with the best ways, but the answer to destroy South Lebanon by bombing was not the best decision. On the other way, the army was used to lead police-actions instead of real military actions, as it did in the past and IMO the logistics and the way they did it in Lebanon was a wrong decision.

The main problem is Iran and it can only be solved by a clear policy of the US government, what brings us to the "Fallows" text. The real point : does the people in Washington know exactly what they want and does the folk in the States know what it will cost ? It is the same situation as in France and GB in the thirtees against the Nazis. If you are not ready to fight now it will cost much more later !!!.

Expecting your opinion here or on mail...

Old bob

 

Ok, prepare for a very long-winded (even for me!) post, as I'm replying to the above first, and then the article!

 

I'm sorry to hear that your friend did not survive.

 

I'm not Jewish, but I am, by classical definition, a Zionist. I strongly support a state of Israel that encompasses it's present territory plus the West Bank. I also feel that Israel's greater restraint in recent decades is a root cause of it's present increase in trouble.

 

As for Dayan, as I say, I have mixed feelings. His military decisions in the run up to and the early days of the '72 Yom Kippur war bother me greatly, but no one can dispute his tactical brilliance later in that war, or especially in the 1967 war and earlier.

 

I do disagree with Israel's Lebanon bombing campaign, but for one reason only: It didn't work, and worse, it gave the strategic victory to Iran and Syria (and their Hezbollah puppets). IMHO, Israel would have been better served by a more intense military campaign, one with their customary speed and a far different operational plan.

 

Bob, you raise one question above that I think is the key to American foreign policy, both of this administration and prior ones: "Do they know exactly what they want?". The answer to that is NO. They not only often don't know what they want, but certainly have no agreement on how to get there even when they do know what they want.

 

As for the article, It was better than I was anticipating, and even raised an issue that I wish the US military would address: That describing Sadr's Militia as the "Mahdi army" does indeed convey a sense of legitimacy on them due to the intrinsic cultural meanings of "Mahdi". That we continue to do so is incomprehensible to me.

 

Another excellent point raised is of the cost to the US economy of the ill-advised attempt to secure everything. The Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Authority are the two best examples of the incredibly waste that has occurred. Both are largely useless, and in many cases are actually counter-productive. Time after time we hear about infants being kept off of flights due to matching names on a do-not-fly list, and time after time we hear of security breaches that a child should have been able to detect and deal with. That's just the tip of the iceberg, too. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security was foisted upon us by the Democrats, as their post 9-11 proposal. They even pushed for hiring and tenure guidelines that made much of it (including the TSA) a jobs program, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters: getting the job done. This is part of why the Democrats have the sadly-deserved

reputation of never seeing a bureaucracy that they didn't like. They have, so many times, saddled us with more and more government, as if more government was ever the answer for anything. This is part of why I still don't trust the Democratic party on these issues. Of course, I also blame Bush for not opposing, and then signing, the abomination of the Department of Homeland Security into existence. I also feel that Republicans are now every bit as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats, so I'm certainly not supporting the Republicans at the moment, either.

 

There were true security needs after 9/11, and the ability to screen all airline baggage was key amongst them, and the ability to screen seaborne cargo as well. But, five years and hundreds of billions of dollar later, we still don't have those! We could have had what we needed, and had it in place, for less than 1/10th of what we spent to NOT have what we need. It's beyond pathetic.

 

The article points out that much of the airport security is for show, to "make people feel better about flying" while basically doing nothing. This is true, but the costs go well beyond the 5 billion a year mentioned (the economic costs multiply that by at least a factor of three).

 

The article also raises another good point; That the US is at risk from being goaded into acting unwisely. This is certainly true. Iraq was a perfect example, though they overlook a key aspect: The lack of international co-operation existed BEFORE Iraq, and in fact was a prime cause of Iraq. Had the international community not been violating the sanctions regime, and in fact planning on ending it, Saddam would have been of no real concern. It's true that he didn't have a large, active WMD program, but it's also true that he had everything in place to reconstitute one, and planed to do so (there is ironclad proof of both) once the sanctions ended. The US tried to have the sanctions enforced, and also to extend them, but due to the combined forces of blatant greed (look into the oil-for-food scam, plus the enormous amount of prohibited equipment sold to Saddam by France, Russia, etc.) and the mindless whining about the humanitarian cost, the UN was going to lift the sanctions regime (there was no hope of getting the votes to extend it). Saddam would have had his weapons programs back up and running in a hurry. But, even given that, I said at the time that Iran was a far more appropriate target for a US attack. I also fully agree that the US bungled the Iraq invasion, largely via having too few ground forces in theater and also lack of postwar planning. We also made another critical error: *If* we were going in, we should never have given Saddam the time to seed the country for a gurilla war. We had the logistical capability to be ready to invade in early 2002 instead of 2003, and had we done so then, we would have avoided much of both the political and military cost of the invasion.

 

OK, back to the article. It raised some good points, but I believe that in the end, it failed, badly. First and foremost, it only addressed the short term strategic picture, and never gave real examples of how, exactly, the supposed benefits of declaring victory could be implemented. It was specious at best in this regard. Worse, it made the claim that by declaring victory, the US could step back and evaluate it's strategy. That's idiotic: There is absolutely no reason why a US re-evaluation of strategy would be hindered by not declaring victory. They also overlook Osama's obvious move to such a declaration: A nice little video pointing out that he is still there, still a threat, and the US thinks the war is over. He would be hard to counter with that, as he would be quite right.

 

The most glaring failure of the article, though, is that it ignores the elephant in the room: The Actual cause of

terrorism, and WHY it's a growing threat, and WHY it is a long term strategic threat: The underlying dynamic at play here is the radicalization of a large and growing section of the Islamic population, due to radical, racist, and extremist teachings in so many of the Medresses (schools run by the Imams). Medresses are an integral part of the education system in much of the Islamic world, and they are a cancer at it's core. The malignancy of extremism is the underlying cause of Islamic fascism, and is the reason why the extreemists (such as the Saudi Wahhabists) expend so much money and effort in setting up these extremist schools worldwide. Left unchecked, this dynamic will continue to grow, and result in the radicalization of much of the Muslim world. Then, we will be faced with a fairly unified extremist majority of over a billion people, armed with nuclear weapons, who think that it's good to die for the cause (thus rendering deterrence useless). That is a strategic threat that makes the Soviet Union pale by comparison, and the article utterly ignores it.

 

Finally, I'll address your concerns on Iran. The fact is that IMHO the full threat of Iran is not realized in the US, even at the highest levels. There is also a tendency to focus on nar-term issues and ignore long-term ones. Worse still, the US seems to be by far the most rational (with the possible exception of Israel) on this issue, as France, Germany, and Russia seem compelled to work against us in many ways on this issue.

 

The scariest thing is that I often hear people, including those who ought to know better, speaking of "containing" Iran via Deterrence, as we did the Soviets. Against the Soviets, we came close on several occasions to the destruction of the planet, so that alone ought to make them reconsider. However, with Iran, you would have nukes in the hands of fanatics who BELEIVE in martyrdom for the cause! Once they have one, they have the ability to deter us until they have more. Once they have more, they will likely use some, probably by proxy. I'd give 50-50 odds on whether the first city to die will be in the US or Israel (Let's not forget whom the mullahs have been calling "the great Satan" for almost 30 years!). A Nuke by proxy is probably the biggest threat. Much has been said about it being traceable back to it's creator via isotope fingerprinting, but that's actually false. It's true that with plutonium, individual reactors produce different ratios of Plutonium isotopes. But, this is only for plutonium and does not apply to Uranium (which seems to be the route Iran is pursuing the hardest). Furthermore, you would need to know the isotope ratios of the reactor in order to trace it, but by far the biggest flaw in that plan is that you can simply defeat any ratio evidence by mixing the plutonium output of different reactors. But, all that is really irrelevant, because the Mullahs are quite willing to trade Tehran for Tel Aviv or New York.

 

My opinion on Iran: I think there is a good chance that the US or Israel will attempt to forestall their nuclear plans via air attack. I fear that they might not. IMHO, Iran's nuclear program needs to be stopped by any means necessary, no matter what. I'd certainly prefer diplomacy, but I think it's obvious that it won't work. What I am unsure of is whether Israel has the ability to act: Give the ranges of their primary long range strike aircraft (F-15's) they can't pull it off without refueling bases, at least for the return flight. They also couldn't do this with a reasonable chance of success with just one conventional raid. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see an Israeli option short of nuclear. That leaves the US, and even for the US, give the type and number of the facilities, it's going to be a difficult job, with several days of follow-on strikes. But, I don't know if we have the intel to do the job, because we would need to know exactly within feet) where the key elements (such as the centrifuge barrage) are located, and that assumes it's not buried too deep underground. It would be very difficult. The only other two options are the nuclear variant of the bunker-buster (I believe it exists) or ground forces.

 

The one thing I hope that the recent war in Lebanon has driven home to both the US and Israel: that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear capabilities, not matter what it takes.

[old bob]

Ok, prepare for a very long-winded (even for me!) post, as I'm replying to the above first, and then the article!

Bob, you raise one question above that I think is the key to American foreign policy, both of this administration and prior ones: "Do they know exactly what they want?". The answer to that is NO. They not only often don't know what they want, but certainly have no agreement on how to get there even when they do know what they want.

Hi, a quick answer to your post :

1. About the article : I aggree with your opinion, I was just interested by the facts brought about the critics of Bush administration.

2. About the US long term policy : I agree also, But it seems to me that you "preach in a desert".Is anybody else in the States with the same opinion as yours ? As I said, you are the "general de Gaulle" of today (remember one of my former posts )

Old Bob

[C James]

Hi, a quick answer to your post :

1. About the article : I aggree with your opinion, I was just interested by the facts brought about the critics of Bush administration.

2. About the US long term policy : I agree also, But it seems to me that you "preach in a desert".Is anybody else in the States with the same opinion as yours ? As I said, you are the "general de Gaulle" of today (remember one of my former posts )

Old Bob

 

There are some who share my views on many aspects of foreign policy, actually a great many who study the Middle East do, though I have no idea what the percentages would be.

 

The problem with public opinion on foreign policy is that the Media is doing a pathetic job when it comes to explaining the issues. I don't ever recall seeing the issue of radical Medresses being the main root cause of Terror mentioned on the TV news. (this would be akin to not mentioning the SS during WWII!).

 

In related areas, I'm afraid that ignorance and misinformation is rife. For example, I've heard many people (a small minority, thankfully) why believe the Iranian excuse that their nuclear program is peaceful, and they need it for electricity. That's preposterous for so many reasons that it is not deserving of a serious reply, yet some people believe it.

 

Another example is the ongoing buzz in the media regarding whether or not Israel will "take out" Iran's nuclear program. They talk endlessly about this, but totally lacking is any discussion on whether israel has the actual capability to do so. Ugh.

 

Another fact totally lacking from the Media is that as time passes, it becomes progressively harder to seriously derail Iran's nuclear program. Waiting until the last possible moment (assuming you know it) is utter folly, as they would already have the weapons grade materiel. It's the fissionable production facilities that are the real bottleneck (as well as being far easier targets due to their size and infrastructure demands), not assembly or components. So, the assumption that the US or Israel can wait until Iran is weeks away from nuclear capability is flat-out wrong, at least for a strike with conventional weapons. Therefor, the decision point will come far sooner than the media thinks.

 

What will Israel or the US do? Bear in mind that I don't know the actual current status of Iran's nuclear program: I'm assuming that they have not yet enriched enough uranium hexafluoride to weapons-grade levels, because once they have we are in a much worse situation. They appear to be enriching uranium (in it';s hexafluoride form) with centrifuges, which requires vast banks of very large high-speed centrifuges. (this is the route the Pakistani program took). After many cycles, the Uranium hexafluoride is sufficiently refined and then the fluoride can be separated (a comparatively simple and far faster process), leaving weapons grade uranium. Once they have that, building a nuclear weapon is child's play, and they would likely have the components ready in advance. It would take about three days to cast core segments and machine them (far less accuracy is required than with a plutonium-core nuke). Assembly would take perhaps a day, at which point they have nuclear weapons. The Uranium core device usually uses explosive assembly, far easier to do than implosion. In it's simplest form (I'm leaving out details like the initiator), you are slamming together to half-spheres, and the US Hiroshima device was of this general design. It was so simple that it was dropped without ever being tested, because they were so sure it would work. (The Trinity device was an implosion core, not gun-assembly like the Hiroshima device).

 

So, the strike must occur before they have refined sufficient uranium hexafluoride. How far away from that are they? I know they have the centrifuge arrays in at least two locations. What I don't know is there state of progress. I also don't know if the US and Israel are able to know that. But, assuming they do, let's say they determine that Iran is about two years away from producing it's initial batch of nuclear weapons. That would make a strike within a few months imperative. The US can, due to having long range bombers, fighter bombers on Iran's East and West borders, plus naval aircraft, launch a strike to destroy they key facilities (you don't need to get them all, just the ones hardest to repair or replace). It won't be easy: the Array at Estafan is reportedly deep underground, and the key sites are heavily defended and hardened. As a guess, the centrifuge arrays, the hexafluoride processing plants, and the uranium processing and storage sites would be critical, along with Iran's nuclear reactors (the latter are at least easier targets). The centrifuge arrays are easier to find due to having massive power requirements (just follow the massive power transmission lines). But, you need to know exactly where the underground chambers are, to within a few feet, and you can't determine that from the air if they are deep. But, basically, with overwhelming force and bases surrounding Iran, the US would have the ability to keep hitting the targets until the job was done, and so the Us could most likely pull this off (it would be far from easy).

 

Israel, though, does not have nearby bases, and the US would probably much prefer to do the job itself than allow Israel to use Iraqi bases. Israel's long-range strike aircraft (f15's and f-16's) could theoretically do the job at max range with conformal fuel cells and with reduced weapons loads, but it would leave no fuel reserves for combat (which would be very likely) and would also require overflying at least Syria and Iraq.

This would leave few aircraft per target, and Israel only has 25 F-15's and 100 F-16's so a massive strike is out of the question. I don't see this operational scenario as being feasible for anything other than an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran.

 

The most likely option IMHO is the covert cooperation of one of the gulf states (who fear a nuclear Iran) for a refueling base. Turkey might be another option, though I doubt it. I'd give the chances of Israel acquiring such permission as less than 30%, given the politics in the Arab world regarding Isriel. So, Israel has very few options. It does have submarines which can fire cruise missiles, but those are useless against hardened targets. No matter what, the military options for Israel are very difficult.

 

If I were the Israelis, I'd be more inclined to think outside the box and go for an asymmetrical solution. My own personal plan is to use Iran's weaknesses against it. Iran's weaknesses, for these purposes, are three: they lack force-projection capability, they have very serious internal dissent problems (which is the reason for their brinkmanship on the nuclear issue and also the reason why diplomacy will fail: The Mullah can't back down for domestic political reasons) and they have a fuel problem. The last is interesting: Iran has massive reserves of oil, but doesn't have the refining capacity to supply itself with gasoline and other light distillates. They presently import the majority of their gasoline, and much of that comes from Venezuela (which does have the refining capacity).

 

So, my plan would be for the Israelis (this would work for the US, too, and be far easier both politically and militarily) to cut of Iran's gasoline supply and also it's oil exports. That would both bankrupt Iran, and cause it massive internal disruptions. This could be done at first without firing a shot: simply announce a blockade (Iran and Israel are still officially at war, so no "act of war" issues) and that any gasoline tankers bound for Iran must turn back or be torpedoed: Israel has three Dolphin-class diesel-electric subs that could easily threaten the sea lanes to Iran. Those subs can also fire cruise missiles (a modified Harpoon variant) which could hit the vulnerable oil terminals. They could also wreck the facilities for unloading gasoline, and hit nearby storage sites as well, plus Iran's limited gasoline refining capability (which I believe is a coastal refinery). Iran does not have the ASW gear to go after the Israeli subs, and their ranges and deployment times could keep them in the area on a rotating basis (operating out of Elat, Israel's port on the Red Sea).

 

The lack of Gasoline would be devastating to Iran's infrastructure, including food distribution. This operation would coincide with a propaganda blitz: Remind the Iranian people that the Gasoline would return just as soon as the Mullahs, with verification, scrapped their nuclear program. It would also remind the Iranian people that the Mullahs had wasted billions on the nuclear program, claiming it was essential that Iran be self-reliant, while ignoring the fact that a country with some of the world's largest oil reserves had to import gasoline, leaving it's people very vulnerable. Hopefully, the internal chaos would result in an either the Mullahs backing down, or Iranian revolution, but if not, the chaos would at least make the air attack on the Nuclear facilities a bit easier. The only downside would be that Iran's oil would be off the world market for a while, resulting in some shortages and a big increase in global fuel prices. However, UN sanctions would result in much same thing if implemented. (what else can they stop Iran from exporting? Pistachio nuts?)

[old bob]

There are some who share my views on many aspects of foreign policy, actually a great many who study the Middle East do, though I have no idea what the percentages would be.

Hi CJ

your plan is OK, but it is yours Do your really think the US administration (republican or democrat !!) is ready to take action and "clear" Iran ? Where are the Media who could talk and at least bring this plan to be discussed. After the "success" of the occupation of Irak, it will be difficult to find a majority to prepare an attack on Iran. We could perhaps ask DK what is his opinion about the readiness of the democrats to fight an open war as soon as they have the majority in the congress and senate

Old Bob

[old bob]

Hi CJ

I found again an interesting report on http://intelligence.house.gov/Reports.aspx?Section=11

His title : "Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States"

It seems to me that it goes exactly where you want to go, but by the comments I red about it, I suppose that a lot of politicians are not of the same opinion.

What you think ?

Old Bob

[C James]

Hi CJ

your plan is OK, but it is yours Do your really think the US administration (republican or democrat !!) is ready to take action and "clear" Iran ? Where are the Media who could talk and at least bring this plan to be discussed. After the "success" of the occupation of Irak, it will be difficult to find a majority to prepare an attack on Iran. We could perhaps ask DK what is his opinion about the readiness of the democrats to fight an open war as soon as they have the majority in the congress and senate

Old Bob

 

The Bush admin might take action against Iran, I'd say it's about a 50% chance at most. That's just guess on my part. If Bush takes the easy way out, he will leave it for the next admin, bu which time it will likely be too late. The Democrats, on the other hand, have (when they choose to raise the issue) been saying some very heartening things, including statements in favor of an airstrike. I sincerely hope it's not just political sniping and that they mean what they say on the issue. However, there is no unified Democratic policy on Iran, which is a bad mistake on their part for political reasons.

 

Given the Republicans appalling record on many issues (even their own conservative base is ticked off at them) their only real option for the congressional elections coming up in November is to make it all about National Security (an issue the Democrats still are not trusted on). It's very easy to do, if the Democrats don't act first by announcing a party policy on Iran (and they don't appear to have any intention of doing so).

 

All Bush needs to do is call for a vote authorizing force if it's the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The leftist "Cut-and-run" wing of the Democratic party won't support that, and many Democrats will be mindful of what happened to Senator Joe Lieberman (Lost his race in the primaries thanks to the left wing of the party). The Majority of Democrats would likely oppose the measure, and hand Karl Rove (Bushs head political strategist) a very nice stick to beat them with on National Security issues in November. There are other ways of doing this, but it's my bet that some variant is exactly what the Republicans will do, as they have few other options (and the Democrats are handing them the opportunity on a silver platter).

 

BTW, there isn't any reason to invade Iran, as we could accomplish what we need to from the air *IF* we don't wait until the program is close to producing nukes. IMHO, it's clearly a case of "the sooner, the better". It's also glaringly obvious that the UN is a waste of time on this, as France and Russia won't even support sanctions, let alone an airstrike.

 

Hi CJ

I found again an interesting report on http://intelligence.house.gov/Reports.aspx?Section=11

His title : "Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States"

It seems to me that it goes exactly where you want to go, but by the comments I red about it, I suppose that a lot of politicians are not of the same opinion.

What you think ?

 

That's a very good report, and a great primer on the issue. Thank you!

It is however flawed: Negroponte's assessment that Iran is at least five years from nuclear capability is basically a guess. If Iran can acquire reactor-grade Uranium, that would greatly speed the process. Also, the P2 centrifuges may already be in operation, or nearing it, in an underground facility. We do have the means to determine if a centrifuge array is active, *IF* we know where it is: They require a huge amount of electricity; dedicated major high-voltage transmission lines. You can tell if those are active from orbit: when active, they produce some heat (not much). This can be detected by a night-time infra-red image in cool or cold weather. A KH-13 could be tasked for this on demand, BUT, we need to know the location. I have a hunch that we don't, and I certainly don't think it's anywhere near the array pictured.

 

Also, why is Iran producing Pollonium now? It has a fairly short half-life, and for use in a nuclear initiator needs to be under two years old, as I recall. My hunch is that they are closer than we know, and they would logically be running a counter-intel op to deceive us as to the state of their program. Also, the longer we wait, the less actual delay an airstrike will cause. (this was a glaring omission from the report)

 

As for the Politicians, I think many can see the danger. I just hope it's enough, and I hope it's not too late.

[old bob]

As for the Politicians, I think many can see the danger. I just hope it's enough, and I hope it's not too late.

Hey C James

Where are this politicians who see the danger ? I think not on the side of the democrats. What will come if they win the next elections ? I suppose just "Wait and See". How could US strengthen the westfriendly arabic states (Egypt, the Gulf states, Marocco) following the exemple of Lybia ?

Old bob

[C James]

Hey C James

Where are this politicians who see the danger ? I think not on the side of the democrats. What will come if they win the next elections ? I suppose just "Wait and See". How could US strengthen the westfriendly arabic states (Egypt, the Gulf states, Marocco) following the exemple of Lybia ?

Old bob

 

Congress has less say in foreign policy that the President does, so I don't think we will see any changes (for better or worse) in foreign policy as a result of the elections this November.

 

The one thing here that frankly scares the hell out of me is that I don't see anyone (in either party) acknowledging the real cause of the crisis with Iran: Iran's own internal instability. Their government has to provoke crises to retain power (If you look at it from that perspective, it's obvious, because they stir the pot ever time things settle down, hardly a rational act under normal circumstances with a covert program!), and that is what drives their foreign policy. Therefor, all the talk of "deals" is futile: The Iranian government will not keep any deal, because it is against it's interest to do so. What is scaring me so much is that I see all too many officials acting as if Iran's foreign policy is driven by external factors, not internal ones. That shows that they do not comprehend the situation, and that terrifies me.

 

As for the Democrats, many of their top leadership (Such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) have criticized the Bush administration for not being tough enough on Iran. On one hand, this is good, assuming it's not just political hot air. However, it also displays an ignorance of the situation: Iran can't be pushed into backing down, so a hard line is counter-productive. It's internal problems (the threat of overthrow by revolution) preclude any sort of "peace" (they need crisis and confrontation to hold on to any vestige of public support). Therefor, they have to be confrontational. The smart way to play this is to not play their game: Minimalize them so that they don't get the crises they seek, and then strike by surprise when necessary. Also, give every possible aid to those seeking to fight the Mullahs inside Iran. With any luck, their government will soon fall (if it wasn't in danger, it would not be intentionally provoking and exacerbating crises).

 

As for the Democrats, they are about to hand an enormous present to Karl Rove (Chief Bush political strategist). Former US President Jimmy Carter is about to host the former President of Iran on a visit to the US. Carter, if one is charitable towards him, is a bumbling fool. It was his meddling in the Korea crisis in the 90's that produced the "Agreed Framework" that precluded Clinton getting tough with them, and of course they promptly ignored it when they felt like it. There is also his role in the Venezuelan elections, and many other blunders (to give him the benefit of the doubt) since leaving office. Now, he plans to host the former President of Iran, just weeks before the US elections. The Bush administration could (and should) invoke the Logan act, which makes it illegal for a private citizen to attempt to conduct diplomacy. However, they won't: This is a political gift from heaven for the Republicans, and the Democrats don't seem to see it yet.

 

It will be child's play for the Republicans to point to this, and the conflicting Democratic statements on Iran (they certainly are not in agreement, and so mainly avoid the issue) and paint them, yet again, as incompetent on national security. And in this case, if the Democrats do nothing, the Republicans will have the added advantage of being right.

 

What the Democrats need to do, both for the good of their party and country, is to decide upon a party platform plank regarding Iran: That it shall not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, period. This would not only steal the Republican's thunder, but it would gain a march on them. They could also say that they would not be repeating the Republican mistake on Korea. But first and foremost, they need to treat Jimmy Carter like the Republicans did Richard Nixon: as a Pariah.

 

BTW, Libya gave up it's weapons program as a direct result of the US threat. However, that parallel does not apply to Iran. Kadafi faces no threat of internal overthrow so has no need to provoke confrontation. The dynamic is different: that route won't work in Iran. The only thing that might is to cause long-term internal disruptions in Iran that can be blamed on their government's actions (such as cutting off their gasoline).

The Mullahs have no fear of a US air strike: They have made certain that many of the targets would cause huge civilian losses if hit, so a US strike would play into their hands, because they are concerned with their regime, not their country or people. I still favor a US strike, though, as a lessor evil, if it's the only way to stop them acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

BTW, if the Iranian Mullahs start to feel more public unrest, I predict that they will certainly provoke a war with Israel. They would have no reason not to do so (the more damaging the Israeli reaction, the better, from their perspective).

[old bob]

Congress has less say in foreign policy that the President does, so I don't think we will see any changes (for better or worse) in foreign policy as a result of the elections this November. .....

BTW, if the Iranian Mullahs start to feel more public unrest, I predict that they will certainly provoke a war with Israel. They would have no reason not to do so (the more damaging the Israeli reaction, the better, from their perspective).

I always wonder how adequate and precise you analyse the present situation.

Two points :

1. when I discuss with my friends here in Switzerland about the public opinion in the States, they seem to think that the real position of the majority is to sustain the republican policy because of the support of the churches.

 

2. If the Likoud win the next elections in Israel, is than a need for them to obtain the green light from US to destroy the nuclear power of Iran or couldn't they do it themselves, as a preventive attack (that would mean that they have the "intelligence" knowledge, as they did a few years ago).

 

What do you think about ?

 

BTW, have we really the right to carry on our personal political discussions through GA ? I hope yes, so long as others readers are also interested ?

[dkstories]

 

Bah!

 

This thread scares me, btw, but if you want to talk Iran, let's talk Iran.

 

Five years ago, President Bush all but guaranteed that this would be happening now. He named his 'Axis of Evil'. Saddam couldn't get nukes, and his military was severely weakened by a decade of sanctions and regular bombing by US forces. (During that decade, we dropped some bombs on Iraq almost every week). While we focused on Iraq and the straw-man puppet threat of Saddam, North Korea and Iran hastened their nuclear programs, safe in the knowledge that while we might huff and puff, we couldn't invade their countries.

 

Yep, they know we might bomb them with our airplanes, but we're not going to invade them. We don't have the military manpower to do that.

 

Were we to bomb Iran, or to allow Israel the use of Iraqi airspace, I believe the United States would lose on the ground in the Middle East. We don't have the manpower to sustain the force that would be necessary to keep a toehold there with the resulting popular uprising amongst civilian populations in the region.

 

We are now in a damned if we do, damned if we don't type situation and it's not going to get easier...

[old bob]

<I will not get involved in this discussion. I will not get involved in this...>

Bah! .....We are now in a damned if we do, damned if we don't type situation and it's not going to get easier...

Hey DK, you shouldnt to be afraid to get involved.

Its a matter of our future, both States and EU. But that's exactlly the situation in which France and UK were in 1938, with the result of millions of deaths...Every citizen has to participate in the decision, that's why the votes are...

Old bob

[C James]

I always wonder how adequate and precise you analyse the present situation.

 

Please bear in mind that everything I say is just my opinion, and I might well be wrong.

 

Two points :

1. when I discuss with my friends here in Switzerland about the public opinion in the States, they seem to think that the real position of the majority is to sustain the republican policy because of the support of the churches.

 

That's not true, or at least, it's a grievous over-simplification. Party affiliation is not determined by religion. For example, the largest denominational group in the US is the Catholic Church, and a majority of Catholics are Democrats.

 

However, it is true that a substantial percentage of the Republican "Base" is primarily motivated by religion, as they feel Republicans are more in line with their agenda (and IMHO they are largely correct in that assessment, unfortunately).

 

So, this is something that is true in part (true for some, though not most Republican voters).

 

2. If the Likoud win the next elections in Israel, is than a need for them to obtain the green light from US to destroy the nuclear power of Iran or couldn't they do it themselves, as a preventive attack (that would mean that they have the "intelligence" knowledge, as they did a few years ago).

 

What do you think about ?

 

I personally don't see any reason why Israel would need any "green light" from the US to attack Iran, (EXCEPT if they need help). They haven't asked for such "permission" in the past, so why start now?

The big question on an Israeli attack is IMHO HOW would they do it; The logistics are major obstacle here.

 

BTW, have we really the right to carry on our personal political discussions through GA ? I hope yes, so long as others readers are also interested ?

 

Now this is a critical question in my mind, which is why I highlighted it. I'm not sure what overall GA policy is on this, but so far as I know, civil political discourse is only banned in the lounge specifically, and in other areas due to being off-topic.

 

IMHO, the key issues in this case are what DK's preferences on the matter are. This forum is, essentially, like being a guest in his house, and we are like two guests talking in the corner of his living room. I hope DK will weigh in if he objects. (DK?)

 

To be honest, I was surprised to see DK

[old bob]

Please bear in mind that everything I say is just my opinion, and I might well be wrong.

Hi CJ

When the MODERATOR speaks, we have to obey

No more political discussions in the DK's house

the next will be hidden

I understand your position

Old bob

[dkstories]

Discussions like the one in this thread are not something I'd object to...especially since it does dovetail with plot points behind several of my stories...I've been reticent to post simply because the length and depth of some of the posts are intimidating...and I'm far too short on time to give them the response the deserve.

 

If I want a thread killed because it's straying too far into 'debate' more than discussion, I will kill that thread myself. Unless you here me say 'enough' or 'this topic is over', feel free to participate (and that includes any 'moderators' out there.

 

This isn't an open invitation for something like the soap box was...but something like this that has a connection to the stories I write...I'll allow.

 

Don't do a 'bash bush' (as much as I enjoy doing just that), but if you really want to discuss esoteric military/political/international relations issues like this thread...keep it civil, keep it within reason, and knock each other out!

 

Then again, I don't mind topics about whether Garret should settle down with Lukas of the Mighty Legs or Gary of the perpetual touching...

 

P.S. I don't mind pictures of cute guys in baseball uniforms either! (hint hint, Brax)

[C James]

Please bear in mind that everything I say is just my opinion, and I might well be wrong.

Hi CJ

When the MODERATOR speaks, we have to obey

No more political discussions in the DK's house

the next will be hidden

I understand your position

Old bob

 

Hi Bob! Whoa!

 

Whether there are political discussions in DK's house is NOT for me to decide, nor was I even trying to say whether they were or not. (See DK's post above. Thank you DK!!!!)

 

All I was saying was that as a moderator *I* (this only applies to me, no one else!) needed to be extra careful not to make posts that might be on the edge of the rules.

 

To be clear, I was only policing myself (due to circumstances that apply only to me), no one else.

 

CJ

Edited September 5, 2006 by C James

[old bob]

Hi Bob! Whoa!

Whether there are political discussions in DK's house is NOT for me to decide, nor was I even trying to say whether they were or not. (See DK's post above. Thank you DK!!!!)

All I was saying was that as a moderator *I* (this only applies to me, no one else!) needed to be extra careful not to make posts that might be on the edge of the rules. To be clear, I was only policing myself (due to circumstances that apply only to me), no one else. CJ

Hi CJ !

"To be clear", once more I fired too quickly ! I couldnt imagine having a political discussion without you...

and I was refering to your PM . Let's go in the future, with DK's blessing, hoping that a lot of his stories will give us the opportunity to feed back to the struggles of today.. Ha..Ha.

Old Bob

 

P.S. I don't mind pictures of cute guys in baseball uniforms either! (hint hint, Brax)

Hi DK !

Neither I But I would say that I even prefer them without uniform (Will I be warned ?)

Old bob

[C James]

If I want a thread killed because it's straying too far into 'debate' more than discussion, I will kill that thread myself. Unless you here me say 'enough' or 'this topic is over', feel free to participate (and that includes any 'moderators' out there.

Thanks DK!

Don't do a 'bash bush'

Drat! And double drat! I've got this really persistent Mesquite bush that's growing in my driveway, that I've tried to get rid of for months. I was going to post some really nasty things about it, but now I can't.

Hi CJ !

Hi Bob! Thanks!

 

Have you heard the latest from China? They not only insist that the "solution" to Iran's nuclear program be peaceful, but they also ruled out economic sanctions. (they don't bother to say what they think should be done, but if it's not military or economic, there isn't a lot left!).

 

What this means is that the UN route, as I unfortunately thought, is a dead end. This is looking more and more like it will be left up to the US or Israel to take care of, as I doubt the EU will do much without the now-impossible UN approval, and they don't have much in the way of long-range precision-strike abilities anyway.

 

I don't like the look of the way this is going, at all.

Edited September 10, 2006 by C James