The U.S. Army War College has issued a report, Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran (thanks to Kemaste). From the report synopsis:
To contain and deter Iran from posing such threats, the United States and its friends could take a number of steps:...encouraging Israel to set the pace of nuclear restraint in the region by freezing its large reactor at Dimona and calling on all other states that have large nuclear reactors to follow suit...
The stupidity of this is astounding, but not surprising. Will Ahmadinejad, after calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, be so chastened by an Israeli nuclear freeze that he will abandon Iran's own nuclear program? This recommendation is just another example of the apparently unkillable assumption in Washington that the jihadists will be appeased and pacified by concessions and manifestations of good faith by America and Israel. Although the evidence mounts every day that jihadists see such concessions only as signs of weakness, and jump to capitalize upon them as ruthlessly as they can, policymakers continue to ignore it -- and to churn out reports such as this that in essence counsel the non-Muslim world to consent to its own destruction.
"To contain and deter Iran from posing such threats, the United States and its friends could take a number of steps:...encouraging Israel to set the pace of nuclear restraint in the region by freezing its large reactor at Dimona and calling on all other states that have large nuclear reactors to follow suit"...
How about.......NO!
Something in this statement reminds me of the book "Total war 2006" by the war studies dept of kings college ...if anyone has read it?
These guys are still fighting the last war (cold war). The MAD doctrine worked because both players behaved rationally. Both feared their own destruction. In the present situation the enemy cannot be deterred by the prospect of utter destruction because he possesses an irrational belief that he will attain his ultimate goal (eternal bordello) by precipitating a nuclear winter.
The background, the reading, the grasp of history and of men and events, that one looks for in all these busy writers of such reports, these think-tank "experts" -- we know they are "experts" because that's what they are called when they are quoted in stories in The new Duranty Times or on NBC -- "experts" in such-and-such. And so they must be. For they wouldn't be called, say, "experts on Iraq" or "experts on nuclear proliferation" or "experts on Islam" or "experts on this or that" if they weren't "experts" -- would they? And Washington is full of such experts. As for the U.S. War College, like all such places, it has its good and its bad. A particuarly egregious example of the bad was the report, by a Muslim navy health-care specialist, who apparently grew up in the American south, but by dint of being a Muslim, and a good, true-blue, presumably utterly loyal-with-only-America's-best-interests-at-heart serviceman, was commissioned to write a report -- he may have worked in that large group of Deep Strategic Thinkers directed by Douglas Feith. Feith never studied Islam before 9/11/2001. Nor did Wolfowitz, nor Rumsfeld, nor any of the others. They got up at 4 a.m. for four years, and went to the Pentagon. Workaholics. Very impressive. But they might have impressed more had they taken the time to study the tenets of Islam, with a little more Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and the contents of Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" read, re-read, thoroughly assimilated. They might have impressed more had any of them read a little history about Iraq, as well, beginning with The Letters of Gertrude Bell, and then essays in The Chatham House Version by Elie Kedourie. And they might have impressed more had they not had the Army War College put out, as a contribution -- a remarkably misleading one -- the "study" by two Muslims, one of them, Lieutenent Aboul-Enein, as noted above, chosen apparently only becuase he calls himself a Muslim, and therefore instantly becomes 1) an "expert" for the military on Islam and 2) can be sure to be trusted because no Muslim who has served so loyally could conceivably misstate, or even misunderstand, the view of Infidels inculcated by Islam -- that simply isn't in the realm of tough-minded army strategists's understanding.
Look up that Aboul-Enein article. That it was actually put out by the Army should make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. You can be a big tough soldier, having served 4 tours of duty, and won all sorts of Purple Hearts, and still be taken in by, inveigled by, misled by, those who misstate the teachings, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam.
That is the problem. Or one of them.
As for the paper above, one cannot quite conclude from that excerpt -- which may simply have been offered as a suggestion among the many given, and perhaps even a suggestion made by others that the authors reject.
But the very title "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready iran" is horrifying. It smuggles in, already, the idea of giving up on doing anything about Iran's nuclear project. This cannot be. It suggests, it puts out into the atmosphere of conceivable thoughts, that we should accept a regime run by devotees of Ayatollah Khomeini, who take hiim as their inspiration and their guide, or even, and even worse, Mesbah Yazdi (as Ahmadinejad is reported to do), which will certainly not hesitate to use whatever nuclear weapons it manages to acquire againt whatever Infidels it thinks will inflict major damage -- they are quite ready to face that, in a kind of national suicide-bombing -- but not destroy Islam. They are. This must be understood, even by the complacent strategizing graduates-of-departments-of-international-relations and Foreign-Policy-reading Bright Young Things who have nothing like the intellectual background required.
The paper referred to, at least in its title, should make us think back, and imagine Halifax, in 1938, having the Foreign Office publish a document, and proudly distribute it far and wide, with the title "Living with Mr. Hitler -- Not So Unthinkable After All."
It seems like we're always one war behind, trying to apply lessons learned in the last conflict to new situations of a totally different character. It's different this time. It's ALWAYS different THIS time.
Command needs to be highly adaptable, leaving preconceived notions at the door, and be willing to take a position that, despite decades of personal military service and war-college theory, there just may be someone who has a better handle on the specifics of a new conflict, it's theatre, and the human forces and currents at play within that theatre. Then command must be able to listen and heed what is offered them, and not disregard it.
Robert:
Is it stupidity, or just an indication of the infiltration of Arabists into the military?
The whole paper must be read before it can be judged. Patrick Clawson is not an appeaser, or at least he didn't sound like one, last time I read something he wrote or said. But the title is appalling, and the small excerpt above bodes ill. Let's see.
Well done, tax payers money well spent again.
My only problem is that the retards who write these reports are educated by liberal universities and professors who are all multicultural liberals. Then they come out into the real world and learn true moral fortitude from their leaders eg. Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a scum bag but he was smart, in fact he thought he was a genious on the North Korean issue but look where we are now.
The first thing that needs to be done is to write a report on how to train young men to fight suicidal islamists then write a report on how to get rid of the cry baby liberal element in the american political process.
Once these reports are written and read by the general population the assholes like the guy who is suing the government to take "in god we trust" off of money because it infringes something or other will be laughed out of the Supreme Court.
OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS YOU SONS OF BITCHES!!!!
More like war junior college.
First off, this the Army War College, noted for it's aversion to anything that will detract from BIG Army missions like defending the Fulda Gap with heavy armor. Secondly, the book is a collection of essays designed to point out aspects of the issue on Nuclear capable Iran and does not appear to offer any solutions.
1. Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran:
Report of the NPEC Working Group Henry Sokolski Part II. Tehran’s Nuclear Endeavors: What’s the Worry? . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2. Arab Security Responses to a Nuclear-Ready Iran
Richard L. Russell
3. The Nuclear Capabilities and Ambitions of Iran’s Neighbors Wyn Q. Bowen and Joanna Kidd
4. Turkey, Iran and Nuclear Risks Ian O. Lesser
5. The Day after Iran Gets the Bomb
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Part III. Is There a Simple Military or Sanctions Fix?
6. Is the Begin Doctrine Still a Viable Option for Israel? Shlomo Brom
7. Strategy for a Nuclear Iran
Thomas Donnelly
8. Iran Gets the Bomb―Then What?
George Perkovich, with Silvia Manzanero
Part IV. Further Courses of Action
9. Reducing Vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz
Dagobert Brito and Amy Myers Jaffe
10. Deter and Contain: Dealing with a Nuclear Iran
Michael Eisenstadt
11. Managing the Iranian Threat to Sea Commerce Diplomatically Douglas E. Streusand
12. What Transatlantic Strategy on Iran?
Thérèse Delpech
CONCLUSION
Time is running out in September 2005 and stakes are high for both America and Europe. A multipolar nuclear Middle East is the last thing both partners wish to see develop.45 For that reason, even an Iranian advanced nuclear capability that has not yet built a bomb is unacceptable. Such a situation would give rise to similar ambitions in the region and encourage the same kinds of military developments. As North Korea has taught us in East Asia, where Japan increasingly is nervous, ambiguity is dangerous.
I have a close friend who recently attended the War College. I shall ask him about this article. Nevertheless, the phrase "creeping defeatism" keeps entering my mind.
The whole collection of articles would have to be read in order to determine if there is an expressed willingness to permit Iran, under any regime, or any other Muslim state, under any regime, to acquire or continue to possess nuclear weapons or weapons of similar potency. Anxiety arising from the title and the excerpt offered may be exaggerated.
The recipe for peace in the mideast and putting a lid on Islamism, is to provide Israel free of charge a couple of B-2's, F117's, a handful of MOAB's and Hyrdrogen bombs gratis, with a guarantee by the State of Israel, that if the Muslims act out anymore that they will judiciously employ them against Islam's sacred sites and capitals.
The world will have a hissy fit, but at this point who gives a rats.
Couple this with Sharon's "move to the middle"...it appears more and more likely that the US is prpeparing to try to "contain" the nuclear caliphate.
God Help us all because these "great minds" are not taking into account the Social-Psychological affect of having an Islamic theocracy obtaining nukes will have on the Pride of the Islamist Lion.
No one can trust Iran as long as the Mullahs are in charge...
The drudgereport.com this AM carries a leading story of a former Canadian Official claiming UFO's are real and is afraid the US/others will spark an intergalactic war.
If this proved to be true, it dwarfs the Iran, ME, Islam problem.
I would like to hear a muslims explanation of space aliens with weapons...Allah knows best?? Explain it to me...
Whether or not Iran gets the bomb is currently in the hands of the diplomats (God save us). On the face of things, the current trajectory of diplomatic events points to a nuclear Iran.
The military has to be prepared for any eventuality, including that most miserable one.
From a military standpoint, a pre-emptive attack is almost certainly far easier and less expensive in the long run than a post nuclear containment. But pre-emption is against the rules. In the current intellectual climate of Islamic appeasement, it will probably take a nuclear attack on the continental U.S. or one of its allies to change those rules.
The only thing we can do individually is try to change the intellectual climate (God bless Robert and Hugh), a long term project that will take a generation to accomplish, even if it is successful. Then, confident of our national purpose, proud once again of our Western heritage, and wary of the true enemy of civilization that is Islam, we can elect a Teddy Roosevelt and give him the license and the wherewithal to act vigorously in our defense.
Until then, our ally Israel had better not even think about disarming. And our military must stoically continue to develop the technology, weapon systems, leadership, force structure, and organizational prowess to cope with the results of egregious diplomatic folly.
To contain and deter Iran from posing such threats, the United States and its friends could take a number of steps:...encouraging Israel to set the pace of nuclear restraint in the region by freezing its large reactor at Dimona and calling on all other states that have large nuclear reactors to follow suit...
Wow, this is precisely what all the Arab Muslim countries surrounding Israel say. What a spooky coincidence, huh...
Nariz, another answer would be to get Israel into NATO. I once asked someone important about this, but they said that no one can join NATO if they are currently involved in a border dispute.
Too bad the same thing didn't apply to England/North Ireland or Turkey (a la Cyprus.) I guess the rule must really say something like, "No nation may join NATO if they are involved in a border dispute with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, or 'palestine.'"
This is a preposterous conclusion to draw, i.e. opting for a weakening of defenses at the moment your enemy is gaining strength in the hope that his intentions will be mollified... But this shouldn't be taken too seriously... There is a never ending blizzard of reports and opinion papers which fly out of the Defense Department -- supporting any number of conclusions, many of which are inane...
Nevertheless it brings something to mind which concerns me, and may be hampering the wider recognition that the rest of the world is now facing an unprecedented Jihad which has little to do with Jews or Israel... Today there's an interesting article in FrontPageMag.com -- an interview by Jamie Glazov on the lessons one may draw from the fiasco of Oslo... It makes for interesting reading, and I concur with many of the ideas. But does the effort to understand Jihad through a Jewish or Israeli filter do much to help the larger public understand the menade? Might this be doing more harm than good? It's just a question which has been ocurring to me lately...
The relentless mentioning of Israeli politics in the Middle East in conjunction with the Islamic Jihad probably does much to divert Western attention away from the true nature of the Muslim Jihad ... I hope this isn't mischaracterized as somehow blaming Israel for the insufficient response from Western Leadership regarding Muslim expansionism, Muslim supremacy, and Muslim fascism... It is NOT... And I avidly support Israel.
But I can't help but wonder how the perception among Westerners is skewed (and this doesn't require the slightest tinge of anti-semitism to be true) to imagine that this is not properly our fight against the Jihadis? This may simply be another in a long list of tremendous dilemmas and complications confronting us in the greatest Islamic Jihad in history -- the one which confronts us today...
All along I have had the intuition that this may be the 'perfect storm' against the West -- Our house divided -- a post modernist notion rampant among our Westerner citizens that either there is nothing worth defending here in the West, or worse, that we deserve to be attacked for our heinous culture and civilization -- this coupled with a ravenous newly engorged rampaging Islam, the ultimate opportunistic "religious" infection, a veritable cultural EATING MACHINE, primitive but oh so effective at gobbling up swaths of land and destroying great former civilizations... all this, and the advent of WMD in the hands of small bands of fanatical undeterrable maniacs willing to justify and ends to achieve their means... We are in a dire predicament...
Discussing whether or not it is productive to always discuss Israel in conjunction with the Great Jihad can be especially problematic given the quickness with which some toss out accusations of "anti-Semite"... This is a page the Jihadis have successfully taken into their own play book -- accusing anyone of "Islamophobia" at the drop of a hat in order to prevent discussion...
Until the West perceives that Israel and Jews have nothing to do with Islamic predation, we probably are condemned to half measures, and garbled nonsense in place of clear policies. We have yet to name our enemy, and he is legion among us... Has there ever been a worse pending calamity?
U.S. Army War College's Report is irrelevant.
Pres Bush has already stated that he will not permit a nuclear Iran.
The doctrine of "pre-emptive attack" has been
established by the actions against Iraq.
Ask yourself this, "Do you think we have Special Forces in Iran"?