| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald examines some of what would be involved in an American land invasion of Iran:
Many seem to think that with troops in Iran and Afghanistan, and with our “ally” Pakistan next door, the Americans "have Iran surrounded." Not at all. A land invasion of Iran would not make sense. Where would the American troops come from? Would they be dropped from planes? Would they be taken from the forces already pinned down by IEDs in Iraq? Would they come from Iraq, where American troops are threatened by any number of possible enemies every time they take a drive in a Humvee? But from where else can they come? How is Iran threatened by the handful of American troops in Pakistan? The 15,000 or so American troops in Afghanistan? And how many thousands of miles are those troops from Iran's nuclear facilities? And how many missiles and planes are available?In Iran, even those who do not wish the regime well are, by and large, opposed to any tampering with the nuclear project -- nationalist pride trumps common sense. American equipment could not overnight be moved in, and the equipment in Iraq has been dangerously degraded by desert conditions. American forces in Iraq are now training the very Iraqis, especially the Shi'a, who could and would turn on the Americans in a New York minute if they were whipped up by Iran to avenge an attack on fellow Shi'a. Just a half-year ago, Jaafari was in Washington, oozing the most Uriah-Heepish at-your-feet sentiments about a new "Marshall Plan for Iraq" -- "let's call it the Bush Plan" -- that he thought he could squeeze out of the American taxpayers. Yesterday, however, he dared to denounce Zalmay Khalilzad for suggesting that Americans would be disinclined to pour more billions into an Iraqi government that was "sectarian."
How much do you trust Jaafari? Moqtada al-Sadr? The SCIRI Party? You don't trust them at all, do you? National Review's Nobel candidate Sistani is already funnelling money to Iran. And the Sunnis are already enemies, even if we were to suddenly turn our attention to suppressing Shi'a enemies in Iran or Iraq.
The Iraq fiasco makes it much harder to attack Iran, because the troops are now already in place in a different country, assigned different tasks, and surrounded by a population that could turn on a dime and start to attack them (or at least the Arabs would, though not the Kurds).Iran has 70 million people. For eight years, despite internal disarray, Iran continued to fight Iraq to a standstill, despite the fact that Iraq received American intelligence information, and Saudi tanks, and tens of billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E. Its Basiji displayed the fearlessness of the primitive fanatics they are. Why would such fighters not suddenly spring up in Iraq today, determined to wreak vengeance on the Americans, some of whom arealready isolated in "Iraqi" units to which they have been assigned, in order to help form a more perfect Iraqi union, and where they are now sitting ducks.
In Afghanistan the American troops are far from the border with Iran and even farther from Tehran. The terrain is impossible. This is not a case of Panzer divisions rolling through Belgium. Mountain passes, nonexistent roads and bridges, a hostile population everywhere -- not easy.
What are missiles and planes for? Simply to store up, and count, rubbing our hands in Uncle-Scrooge glee? Or is the Air Force and all of its powerful armory to be put to use? And what are those bombs and missiles for, if not to protect us from an enemy that is determined to acquire weaponry that it will use on Infidels, here and there and everywhere. Any assumptions made about rational behavior, the kind exhibited by the Soviet rulers, need to be reexamined in the light of observable Muslim behavior -- including the willingness to engage in individual, and possibly collective, suicide bombing. The impulse remains the same.
I think some simply feel they cannot quite believe that Iraq has been such a gigantic mistake (after the initial search-and-destroy mission for weapons). They cannot quite face it or admit it. So they continue to believe that it has led to a brilliantly effective pre-positioning of troops to invade Iran. Nonsense.
And even more nonsensical is the unwillingness to recognize that the sectarian and ethnic fissures within Iraq are not to be healed, but to be helped along, so that they flourish into still-greater hostility and, one hopes, hostilities.
Divide et impera, divide and conquer, is the oldest rule of warfare. Why do we not merely ignore it, but try to do everything we can to prevent it? Sentimentalism about how everyone in the end, or almost everyone, must really want the same things, has no place. It is killing us. It is wasting lives and money. Stop it.
Posted by Robert at February 22, 2006 6:31 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Iran may not be as formidable as you think, and the presence of military bases on the perimeter of Iran, are a treat. The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must appear to Iran as Al-qaeda or former Soviet Union troops in Canada and Mexico would appear to us. (Even the presence of Soviet troops in Cuba was a threat to the U.S.) I doubt there are any plans for a large scale invasion of Iran. However, the interested parties in the region (Russia, China, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel, Armenia, the U.S, etc.) do not want a nuclear armed Loonytoon government there. That regime is going to leave the stage. However, there will be chaos when the looneytoons go and it will help if the U.S. is in Iraq and Afghanistan when that happens.
The Islam of Iran is a crypto fascist, racist and supremacist ideology that uses the U.S. and Israel to whip up Nazi style frenzy: I am surprised they have not yet a variant of the Hitler salute. They are about power, just as Hitler was about power, and the masses are being manipulated (as in Cartoon Kristalnact). But Arian Nation leadership is being penned in as Hitler should have been penned in by interested parties of that era. They are not going to be permitted to become the Nazi Germany of the region.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 22, 2006 7:39 AM
Mr Fitz-
BTW, Mike Savage said this was an interesting site-and it is that.
Posted by: Frank at February 22, 2006 7:51 AM
Iranian nuclears would be hit demolished excavated buried under rubble by our Air Force which is eminently doable. Our Air Force is not tied down in Iraq. It will be done during warm months because oil is so necessary for the winter. We have a 120 day emergency oil stockpile and so does Western Europe (supposedly)
The only problem I see is if Russia and/or China step in to back up the mad Mullahs and provide nuclear umbrella/
Twelfth Imam, hidden Imam, my ass! Git 'er done! Let the chips fall where they may. No guts no glory
Posted by: dennisw at February 22, 2006 7:52 AM
Frank-
If you want to know Islam, want to know Muhammad's life (which all Muslims are duty bound to emulate) if you want to know to know Jihad, you are at the right place. I would also recommend faithfreedom.com and lgf
http://faithfreedom.com/ (currently down due to enraged Muslim hackers-pests)
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
at February 22, 2006 7:59 AM
Frank-
If you want to know Islam, want to know Muhammad's life (which all Muslims are duty bound to emulate) if you want to know to know Jihad, you are at the right place. I would also recommend faithfreedom.com and lgf
http://faithfreedom.com/ (currently down due to enraged Muslim hackers-pests)
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
at February 22, 2006 8:00 AM
I get to faithfreedom.org without trouble.
*org* not *com*
at February 22, 2006 10:32 AM
I think some simply feel they cannot quite believe that Iraq has been such a gigantic mistake .... They cannot quite face it or admit it.
Posted by Hugh.
You know, Hugh, for someone who regularly rails against the MSM and their lack of ability to see the truth, you sure have bought their version of what is happening in Iraq lock, stock, and barrel. Either that, or your definition of failure is "They didn't do what I thought they should do."
As for Divide and Conquer, perhaps the strategy is to divide the Muslim world into Democracies and non-democracies so that those living in the latter will realize that they're getting a raw deal.
You may get your wish, however, the news lately seems to indicate that the sectarian splits there are getting worse, not better.
Posted by: Big G In TX at February 22, 2006 11:38 AM
Some are fond of poo-pooing the presence of US troops in Iraq today -- I think they seriously underestimate the significance of surrounding Iran. Our war against the Mullahs will be one of starvation, radical surgery, and finally, strangulation -- we can lock them in their cage until they die and we win... There is very little Iran can do, despite all the malodorous wind belching from Tehran lately.
The presence of US forces along the majority of Iran's borders permits us to seal off the country like never before. Iran is already very isolated, and if we choose to attack their nuclear facilities, or to nail the their spider nest in Tehran, there is little their variable allies China and Russia can do to prevent or stop the US. The Mullahs will prove incapable of holding onto power in the utter chaos which follows. And the US still holds most of the trump cards after the Mullahs are crushed... then those erstwhile "allies" China and Russia, so greedy for access to Iran's oil and gas --the US can, if it chooses, let these vultures curate the feast of Iranian carrion we toss their way.
Previous blockades against Iraq and Iran proved themselves to be relatively weak -- during those regimes, the US was severely limited to sea operations, and very limited air operations. How different the next operations against Iran will seem! We have near complete control over all ingress/egress -- water, roads, air -- and even if they are successful at bombing the straights, halting oil exports, or launching those much vaunted "human wave attacks" that have recently been ballyhooed in a spot very near to this one, that too will have no effect. Such tactics will be a nullity against the onslaught we will wage. First, cage them. Second, begin surgically removing their limbs. Third, strangle them to death. Last, kick their sorry carcasses into the abyss where they belong...
This was only one of the major perks for invading Iraq. Hello Irag -- Bye Bye Saddam. Bye bye Islamic Republic of Iran...
Posted by: jsla at February 22, 2006 11:38 AM
"As for Divide and Conquer, perhaps the strategy is to divide the Muslim world into Democracies and non-democracies..."
-- from a posting above
So "democracy" in places under "Palestinian" control leads to rule by Hamas. And in Iran, "democracy" led to an overwhelming victory by Ahmadinejad. And a tiny bit of "democracy" in Egypt led to the Muslim Brotherhood raising its representation in the Egyptian parliament 500%?
While in the past, the only moral advances made, pari passu with constraints on Islam, in the entire Muslim world, were always made not through democratic vote but by the fiat of despots. The Shah of Iran, and before him his father, helped to change the treatment meted out to Bahai, Jews, and Christians (chiefly Armenians). Mohammed V, as a Sherifian descendant of the Prophet above criticism, managed to tamp down Islamist fervor; in Tunisia, Bourguiba and his Destour Party, and his successors, including Ben Ali who runs a police-state, have managed to give women rights and to otherwise limit the power of Islam. The most important example, however, is Kemal Pasha -- Ataturk -- who systematically constrained the political and social role of Islam, and his system was followed for 80 years, and helped to create a class of secularists, about one-quarter to one-third of the Turkish population, that has not done nearly enough to recognize, and deal with, the growing power of Erdogan and the others who are steadily undoing the secularist reforms, and also undoing the pro-American and much less pro-Israeli impulses that, over time, had been allowed to develp among secularist
Turks and are being undercut every day, in books and movies and on television and in the popular press.
This "democracy" business is absurd. It means nothing, if Islam itself is not rendered less popular. And it is more out in the open in Iraq today. Basra, and the entire south, is far more subject to the strictures of Shari'a now than at any time since World War II, and possibly since the earliest days of the British presence in Mesopotamia after World War I.
What division between "democracies" and "non-democracies" do you see working to the advantage of Infidels, and helping to constrain the power of Islam? Do you think "democracy" in Iraq is helping to constrain the appeal, and power, of Islam? Give me one tiny bit of evidence.
There is none.
Posted by: Hugh at February 22, 2006 11:58 AM
"You know, Hugh, for someone who regularly rails against the MSM and their lack of ability to see the truth, you sure have bought their version of what is happening in Iraq lock, stock, and barrel."
-- from the same poster above
In what way have I "boughjt their version of what is happening in Iraq"? My view on what should happen in Iraq, in order to promote division and demoralization, is that the Americans should cease trying to do everything they can to create a functioning, well-run, non-sectarian Iraqi government, and instead do nothing of the sort. They should welcome, and stop trying so hard to discourage, sectarian and ethnic divisions. And they should stop pouring so much American money into projects in Iraq that simply will not, cannot, conceivably win Muslim "hearts and minds" -- though whatever we give, they will (ungratefully) pocket.
Tell me exaclty how I have bought somebody's, anybody's, version of "what is happening in Iraq"?
If you tell me the Americans have done wonderful things, and that the American and world press have failed to report it adequately, I will readily agree. And then I will add: but so what? Why should I be delighted to learn that we have built schools and hospitals and power plants and water treatment plants? How does that help weaken the forces of Islam? How does that make sense?
And go ahead -- tell me about the January 15, 2005 democratic election, and all those purple-thumbed voters. Tell me about that new Constitution (with its careful clause about nothing shoud contradict Islam), and then the referendum on that constitution. Tell me again about the December 15, 2005 election, and how smoothly it went off, and how Sunnis participated. Tell me again how the fact that a government has not yet been fully formed, some two months later, is a sign of mature compromising in the works.
What do I care about any of that? How does any of that prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? How does any of that diminish the ability of the Arab and Muslim states from receving tens of trillions more in oil revenues, since those hundreds of billions spent in Iraq are not available for crash development of nucelear, solar, and wind energy, and for conservation projects? How does "democracy" which has brought Shi'a theocrats, rather than Sunni despots, to power, help Infidels in any way? Isn't it far more likely that we will be helped if the Sunni-Shi'a clash over power and money within Iraq becomes still greater, and even leads to the diversion of men, money, materiel, and attention from both Iran on one side, and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states, on the other? Isn't that what makes sense?
Tell me exactly what evidence you have to support your claim, made above, that "you sure have bought their version of what is happening in Iraq lock, stock, and barrel."
I'm waiting right here.
Posted by: Hugh at February 22, 2006 12:08 PM
With Iran, we must not succumb to the message of those people who say if one nation invades another, that nation must subsequently occupy and rebuild it. Who came up with that nonsense anyway?
Posted by: markjames at February 22, 2006 2:06 PM
xxx
Posted by: 00Buck at February 22, 2006 2:21 PM
Hugh,
Thanks for giving us such wonderful essays. You have a way of writing so eloquently the thoughts and ideas that I and many others have rattling about in our heads, but that we can't quite manage to get exactly how we want down on proverbial paper.
For a long time, I disagreed with you about staying in Iraq, but now I agree with you, despite the fact that I find the thought of our soldiers killing large numbers of jihadists to be EXTREMELY satisfying.
I think we need to keep an air base or two in Iraq to operate out of so we can more easily flatten Iran with our Air Force, but we can get most of our troops out and quit bleeding money over there. And I know the USAF has been mostly sitting Iraq and Afghanistan out, so our fighter and bomber pilots are chomping at the bit. Our Air Force is so lethal it isn't even funny. Just remember the highway of death leaving Kuwait, and that wasn't even the B-52's or B-1's.
However, that is not to say that we made a mistake by taking Iraq. I think it was necessary, but now I agree with you that we would be better served by letting them fight a civil war and kill large numbers of each other off, and use large amounts of money and resources. Although perhaps the Saudis and Iranians would increase oil prices to fund their proxy militias?
Maybe we could even recoup some of the money we have spent in Iraq by selling our used military equipment to both Sunni and Shia sides of the civil war. At least that money might help us to replace the equipment that has been used and abused over there.
Also there have been some exciting developments recently in compressed air powered vehicles. This technology looks very promising. If it works out, we could forego buying foreign oil altogether. Then we could make sure that every other country has this technology and thus deprive the muslim countries of their primary income. And I think that is what we ultimately must do...ruin their economies so they have no means to wage war on us, because we aren't going to make islam reform or go away any time soon. People who are worried about where their next meal is going to come from, don't generally engage in world conquest.
Thanks again Hugh,
For all that you do.
This Carlsberg's for you.
at February 23, 2006 2:52 AM
For the same reason that Iraq would be a hinderance rather than a help - is Afghanistan: we shouldn't have troops there either. If in Iraq the Shias are potential thorns on our side, in Afghanistan, both the Tajiks (who are ethnically Farsi) and Hazaras (who are Shia) are allies of Iran. Ismail Khan has major ties to Iran, and the Hizb e Wahdat is a pro-Iranian front of the Shia Hazaras. Beyond that, you have Tajikistan, where Radio Teheran broadcasts are popular.
Pull all land troops out, and send in the missiles at Iran. Amongst other benefits, they get to be tested, and we get to know how they work.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 23, 2006 4:36 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)