U.S. shakes fist at Iran - But that's all we're likely to do, key experts say

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/315689,CST-NWS-iran28.article

March 28, 2007
BY DAN MURPHY

WASHINGTON -- War with Iran, or even targeted air-strikes at facilities suspected to be developing nuclear weapons, is looking less and less likely.

Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran's move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.

''I think the discussion has really shifted,'' says M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a group that favors diplomatic efforts to resolve the Middle East's problems.

''The conventional wisdom in Washington has changed,'' says Rosenberg.

There were influential people who thought that military action could be possible this year, he says. ''Now, hardly anyone does.''

an "illegimate occupation" by foreign powers, and I believe we fall into that category.

ruined in an actual war. If you don't believe it, just look at what an underground rag-tag gang of guys wearing second hand sports jackets and polo shirts has done to them in Iraq.

And don't tell me about the bombers, they can shoot them out of the sky. The military is shit scared about losing any of those bombers.

Our military was designed to take ground and destroy enemy forces. In a flat out war, nobody except maybe the Russians or Chinese could stand against us. Unlike the Iraqis, the Iranian would stand up - they'd put their planes in the air and their boats on the water, but that would only slow us down and cost us more casualties.

The occupation of Iraq has cost us a lot in material, but we still have plenty to take out Iran.

But we couldn't hold it. What we'd see in Iran would be Iraq, tenfold. The same military that could roll over just about anybody in the world is useless at supression of an insurrection, combatting non-uniformed guerillas. They guy who is selling you a grapefruit in the morning could be shooting at you in the evening, then back to his fruitstand the next day. We don't have a "paper mache military". Our weakness is our imperial ideology which we are trying to impose with that military. Wrong tool for the wrong job.

Iran is the size of the American Southwest, including climate and geography, and has a similar population to the American Southwest,
including California;

only it has higher mountains, and no US-built interstates for our
tanks to run on.

Tehran metropolitan area is now almost as big as L.A. and
is nowhere near US military bases or friendly staging areas.

In fact, most of their major cities are ringed by mountain passes.

Like Switzerland, Iran has lots of mountain passes and, unlike
Afghanistan, they have the technology to build fortified bunkers
housing missiles, not just caves for housing insurgent groups.

Their militia are nationalist, not tribal or sectarian rebels.

They also have many more people and more arable land than Afghanistan.

They have woods and fields and farmlands to hide in... they have
towering rocky mountains that are actually populated by settlements...
not just empty desert hardpan that our troops can traverse easily.

And we can't simply wipe out every bogie that breaks cover;
it's a very big country. The nuclear sites alone are thousands
of miles apart.

winning the occupation of Iraq. All of those high tech systems that they have assume that nobody is shooting back. Look at all the Bradleys and Abrams tanks that have been destroyed by hand planted bombs and RPGs. Shit, we even shot down a few of our own fighter jets with that stupid patriot system by accident. Imagine the toll on all these toys if they had to be used for real.
They aren't going to take anybody out & they know it.

flat out war. Our conventional forces are more than equal to almost any other nation's conventional forces. Our military was designed to find and destroy enemy units. Dealing with an insurgency in an occupation is a totally different thing.

And even at that, our casualties are light. It may seem like a lot to people who think that Grenada and Panama were wars, but compared to a real war this is nothing. We lost more people on the first day of the battle Iwo Jima than we've lost in the entire Iraq war and occupation. That is the predication that allows the administration to say "hang in till we win".

I don't want us out of there because of the cost to our military. I want us out of there because of the cost to our nation's soul. And that is the same reason we should not attack Iran - not our of fear of its military, but for the simple reason that we are not meant to be a militaristic imperial power - all the principles of democracy are against it. When we fight it should be the absolute last possible resort, and should be done with the support of the rest of the world's democracies.

It's not about men and machines. It's about morality.

Heavy bombers and tanks are worthless for anything but destruction of property that we end up paying to fix up later anyway.

agenda.

;)

:D

military buildup on a SINGLE DAY and it goes almost unmentioned here on DU. What is up with that?

A month ago everyone stopped talking about war with Iran and it was like folks were avoiding the obvious implication that it was not about to occur in March, as they had expected for over a year, since the last missed deadline (June 6 2006, remember?) What is up with that? DU constantly ahead of the curve or behind it? I wouldn't want to bet on an exact date based on the "wisdom of the crowd" hereabouts.

Can anyone point me to a thread about the War Games reported by CNN that Iran and the US navies are both practicing in the Gulf?

And how we now have as many naval forces there as we did before the Iraq invasion?

Whay does DU freak out when this is NOT the case (2006) and then stay silent when it actually happens?

We have a nut case running this country. We can't assume conventional wisdom will prevail. This POTUS will act and worry about the consequences later. So just because it would be insane to attack Iran is no reason to assume it won't happen.

"War with Iran, or even targeted air-strikes" -- what the hell does this mean? The distinction?

I guess they think no one would dare retaliate if we bombed them, for fear of a worse spanking, eh?