"Maybe it's Petraeus himself.." Petraeus waged a direct and sophisticated media campaign to sustain the surge. He is one of the first generals that this administration has found that will embrace the politics of the operation. There is little question that media reports coming out of Iraq are those that Petreaus desires to have reported.

Adm. Fallon in his public statements....

IIRC, when Fallon was placed in charge, the CW was that was because the Navy would be the ones to deal with Iran. What statements has he made that demonstrates his opposition?

Petraeus was, once again, this weekend, speaking about Iran supplying arms and support.

But, then I was enjoying the Borscht Belt routines of "Yes, Massa", Pace and Shrub this morning. White House dinners will never be the same without Peter playing the second bananna.

As, they gleefully line up their missions at Whiteman in BG land.

I think the Air Force has established a pretty solid track record of inter-service jealousy and eagerness to promise more than it can deliver. When the war drums quiet down a bit, I would like to discuss why this is--probably having something to do with a sense of immunity when flying over targets bereft of effective defenses--but in the meantime, it makes sense to be skeptical of pilots' ability or inclination to say no to another career-building war crime.

Rivalries in the military ranks.

Yeah, when Tailgate became news, the Air Force in Colorado Springs, yelled, "But, we can do better".

Three aspects of this possible Iran action advocate for its occurrence. One, Bush/Cheney cannot expect a Democratic President to initiate such a campaign. Time is not on their side. Two, the possibility Bush/Cheney think attacking Iran may actually avert a Democratic Presidency. I don't discount the "Rally around the President" factor even accounting for how badly Bushco has botched the Afghanistan & Iraq campaigns. Three, Bush knows his legacy is hopelessly in tatters. He may feel a successful Iran campaign will rehabilitate it or at least blur the mess in Iraq a bit. A botched Iran gambit likely won't soil it much further.

You meant, Tailhook, I presume.

Kevin, I think you have it right here. We should wait to hear what General Petraeus says before we make a decision on whether or not to attack Iran. I'm leaning toward pro-liberation myself, but I'm open minded and am willing to accept whatever The General says.

In any case, there is good reason to believe Iran and its proxy armies like the Quds Force, the terrorist Revolutionary Guards, and Hezbollah are working with the terrorists in Iraq attacking allied forces, the Iraqi government, and innocent Iraqi civilians. This was recently reported by the centrist foreign policy think tank the Council of Foreign Relations.

www.cfr.org/publication/14324/

"Washington has long accused the Revolutionary Guards of seeking to destabilize Iraq by supporting Shiite extremists."
"In March 2007, coalition forces captured Ali Musa Daqduq, a Lebanese-born member of Hezbollah operating in Iraq. Pentagon officials say Daqduq was working with the Quds Force to train Iraqi extremists in logistics, firearms, and explosives."
"In a September 2007 interview, Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, a spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, said six operatives with Quds Force links have been arrested in 2007."

The pilots will probably go along with the attack. That is what we have trained them to do and they are well trained.

Sadly I think we are all mistaken if we believe the beltway Democrats aren't already on-board with bombing Iran. That is why the vote for Kyl-Lieberman was so lopsided. I also think the mainstream press is on board as well. That is why we are seeing the coverage we are seeing.

Despite being stung in last week's debate Hillary has been silent about her vote and nobody in the press has pushed her much.

The Air Force has been infiltrated with Evangelical Christian warriors, who will be more than just honored to begin a massive murder campaign against Iranians. They think it is their duty to God to kill Shiites and prepare for the Second Coming of Christ. Like the Arab suicide bombers our culture is so fearful of, the Air Force Christian warriors will be killing for an eternal reward. There are few rational arguments that can rebut heavenly payoffs, and the Evangelical flyboys are immune to them. They will obey their god. Allah forgive them.

Make no mistake about it. The bomber pilots and missileers will obey orders.

I've believed for several years that the chance of the Bush administration ending without at least some sort of bombing foray against Iran is about zero.

"In a September 2007 interview, Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, a spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, said six operatives with Quds Force links have been arrested in 2007."

Posted by: Al on October 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Al, remember the old joke, "Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? A: Easy, when his lips are moving." OK, substitute any military officer for the lawyer in that quip and you know what you need to know about the military defending Bush policy.

The question for me is how heavily evangelical has the Air Force brass become? Are they buying into the mindset of many of the far right Christian zionists who believe that this is necessary for the future of Israel? Is this really just the next step in an undclared crusade?

I am beginning to wish I had left my puter turned off this morning. But then again, that wouldn't change reality a damned bit, would it?

Kevin, on the previous post, Cheney's ad campaign for attacking Iran is going along very intensely indeed. Time for a counterattack. Bush/Cheney would appear to be very vulnerable on their North Korea nuke "victory" if the reports of Syrian/ North Korean nuclear cooperation are true, as reported so eloquently in The Times (of London) over the past few days. It's time to put the bastards on the defensive for a change.

As far as the military revolting...That would either be called a military coup if they were successful, or treason if they weren't. And frankly, if that is the only way to stop Cheney from bombing Iran , I might be in favor of a coup.

What I haven't heard about are the chances that Iran will escalate limited airstrikes into a full war. Are Cheney and company looking at this as an opportunity to make that happen? What do we have then, a draft? Maybe we'll just have a US military further ensconced in the region (with a clearly hostile terrorist state on its border).

And why hasn't congress updated the carte blanche it gave Bush before the Iraq War? Could they revise it so the administration needs to go through congress before they could do airstrikes on a country other than Iraq?

So we bomb Iran and expect "what" to happen?

1. The gov there recognizes the errors of its ways?

2. The Iranian people think, "Thank Allah that the US is dropping bombs on us"? (recalling what usually happens when cops intervene in a domestic despute by getting rough with the aggressor)

3. Millions of Iranians and Iranian Americans think,"Thank Allah that the US is dropping bombs on my homeland and my family"?

Before my Tuesday goes completely to hell, somebody please tell me that such a stupid act is unlikely.

What post did "Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, a spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq" have before his Baghdad assignment?

If you guessed: he was assigned to Karl Rove's shop in the White House, you'd be correct.

Dan Froomkin has been following this guy.

What a pant load.

No, sorry. As usual, people in the media get it wrong.

Despite the fact that there are thousands of members of the military who oppose the Iraq war, they are serving honorably in Iraq.

Despite the fact that there are thousands who would bitterly and openly oppose attacking Iran, if ordered, they would attack Iran.

When it comes to a very clear demarcation line--the use of nuclear weapons--then you might see something of a "pushback."

But it is absurd to think the military is going to revolt. They're not.

But if Sy Hersh is right and Dick Cheney's latest gambit is to turn Iran into a 21st century Cambodia complete with "limited" bombing raids along the border, that's another thing entirely. I'd be surprised if anyone in the E Ring had a serious problem with that.
Let's see, what happened with the Cambodia bombing? Hmm, for a while there it became "Kampuchea" under the Khymer Rouge -- that turned out ok, yeah, sure.

So much time to beat the drums for bombing of Iran, as Bill O'Reilly was pleading for last week - So, little time left for the House and Senate to condemn Rush's "Phony Soldiers" smear.

As Harry and Al, rush in to defend Rush. Taken out "context", was he?

**

thethirdPaul: Everytime I hear 'Yes, Massa', I think of the Ferrari Formula 1 driver.

There is little doubt that Iran is working to affect the outcome in Iraq, much at the request of Shiite groups in Iraq. But, the majority of coalition deaths have come at the hands of Sunnis, funded by Saudi Arabians, and other Sunni Arabs. If Iran really wanted to screw with us they could flood Iraq with anti tank weapons and surface to air missles. These were very effective when we gave them to the jihadis in Afganistan to use against the Soviets. The aftermath of a bombing raid could well be a massive infusion of real weapons for the Shiite insurgents, and our supply lines run from Kuwait through the Shiite south of Iraq.

I'd be surprised if anyone in the E Ring had a serious problem with that.

It's the people in the B, C, and D rings who will have to patiently explain that turning Iran into another Cambodia is probably the stupidest fucking idea on the planet.

As to Iran, if these idiots would pause, and start fomenting a true velvet revolution in Iran, we would have no reason to bomb anyone. Iran is no threat to the United States. Iran is teetering on collapse--it has an economy no larger than that of the state of Alabama.

Yes--ALABAMA.

Their oil industry is failing to keep up with modern demands. No one in Iran remembers the revolution of 1979--the revolution is dead. A handful of autocrats are holding onto power by inciting hatred of the West--standard operating procedures in a region where the US under Bush is only happy enough to stupidly play along.

Instead of bombs, send them free handcrank laptop computers and millions of DVDs and video games and music. Every Iranian should have a free laptop and cell phone, Kanye's new disc, and Halo 3. Include some pictures of girls with bare ankles and a hookup for some free soccer highlights and the crazy frog ringtone, and you'll see the mullahs on the French Riviera in six months.

"If US Army Air Force pilots and US soldiers during World War Two had had the sensitivity of the modern liberal Democrat..."

If the US Army Air Force pilots and US soldiers during World War Two had the sensibility of the modern Movement Conservative, they would have bombed Cuba after the the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I went into the Army in 1983 and left the Army in 2005, so I know a little something about how the military works.

If the National Command Authority says, "Attack Iran," the US Air Force and US Navy will salute smartly, about-face, bomb up their aircraft, load out their cruise missiles, and will attack Iran.

They won't complain, they won't ask questions, they won't challenge the legality or validity of the order. They will execute the mission because that is what 200+ years of civil-military tradition and law directs them to do.

Kevin is correct -- the Air Force and Navy aviation community will see it as validation of the utility of strategic air power. The Army and Marine Corps will beef about it when they take casualties in retaliation but will execute whatever follow-on missions they are given -- limited ground incursion, combat search-and-rescue, whatever.

That is why you need to look to the civilian leadership to limit wars, end wars, and prevent wars. In both constitutional and normative terms, those decisions are above the military's pay grade. And if you don't have a civilian leadership -- in the White House or on Capitol Hill -- that is willing to do that, then just sit back and enjoy the video footage.

Because it's coming.

If Iran really wanted to screw with us they could flood Iraq with anti tank weapons and surface to air missles.

There's no need to do that--Iraq is a live ammo dump. There's enough ordnance there to carry on with five more wars.

And the Saudis are sending enough weapons, thank you very much. Everyone remembers how our great friends the Saudis love to send money to people who want to kill Americans, right?

I think Matt Y. is over-simplifying things to the extent that I think the top strategists of the air-force and the ground-branches of the military understand that, militarily, there are some things you need air power to do and some things you need land-based forces to do that neither one can replace the other for. I think his overall point that the air force is available to do this and wouldn't mind are correct.

I think to keep this thing sorted out it's best to keep in mind that attacking Iran is a conservative initiative, not a military one (I'm not saying that everyone in the military is against it or everyone in the cons. movement is for it, I'me just saying it's more a cons. initiative than one from the leadership of the military).

Kevin makes a good point distinguishing the wills of the rank and file from that of command in the ground forces. Also his examples to show that commmand isn't dead set against extending the war to Iran are note-worthy. I think parroting lines like Dana Priest's would run the risk of making us sound like we don't know what we're talking about when it comes to the military.

I wrote:

I think his overall point that the air force is available to do this and wouldn't mind are correct.

By "this," I mean bombing Iran.

Funny, everytime I hear Ferrari and F1 I think of professional wresting.

if the White House decides to bomb Iran, "the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions."

I always figured that they'd have the CIA do it, just like in Cambodia.

I think parroting lines like Dana Priest's would run the risk of making us sound like we don't know what we're talking about when it comes to the military.

But jackasses like yourself who pollute the thread with inane comments--that does what exactly? Other than drive us batshit crazy...

Gotta get the Swan script, gotta get the Swan script...can someone post that sucker so I can put it on this computer? Thanks a bunch!

Thanks BG and shortstop, the recipe for MacIntosh and Granny Smith apple pie really works.

Heh, Iranian arms shipments into Iraq need to be watched? BLACKWATER (as tools of BushCo) arms shipments into Iraq need to be watched.

There is no doubt in my mind that a goodly part of the arms smuggled by Blackwater into Iraq were not of US manufacture. Or if they were, they were devised to "look" Iranian (like those "Iranian" mortar shells displayed a year ago that had strangely NON-Persion/American-English characters on them).

The main weapons source for Iraq is the US, NOT Iran. I smell a false flag coming and it smells like a big pile of shit.

I went into the Army in 1983 and left the Army in 2005, so I know a little something about how the military works.

If the National Command Authority says, "Attack Iran," the US Air Force and US Navy will salute smartly, about-face, bomb up their aircraft, load out their cruise missiles, and will attack Iran.

Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies on October 1, 2007 at 1:32 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most troubling is they'd smartly salute and carpet bomb San Francisco if those were their orders.

I think to keep this thing sorted out it's best to keep in mind that attacking Iran is a conservative initiative, not a military one (I'm not saying that everyone in the military is against it or everyone in the cons. movement is for it, I'me just saying it's more a cons. initiative than one from the leadership of the military).

Of course, if a high-ranking officer is a politicized, staunch conservative, the more likely I think that the officer will support the strike, and the more knowledge a politicized conservative has about military realities, the more likely it is, I think, that the conservative will second-guess the military value of the strike.

Someone should be asking why congress doesn't do something about this:

http://alovelypromise.blogspot.com/2007/08/attack-on-iran-and-congressional-war.html

Pale Rider - ask and you shall receive, my friend.

Cleek's Disemvoweller

Pale Rider,

Contact BG - Great pies, by the way.

Kevin, thank you for discussing the upcoming bombing of Iran, which is almost a fait accompli unless the Democratic Congress finds some testoterone and begins impeachment proceedings immediately against both Bush and Cheney. That is the only action that I think could stop this extremely grievous rush to war with Iran. Of course, that is as likley as pigs sprouting wings and flying.

As far as whether the Air Force and Army brass would follow orders and attack Iran, I think it is an absolute certainty that they would. There may be one or two officers that might refuse, but they would be quickly silenced and you would never hear from them again.

What I find deeply troubling is the fact that this attack on Iran could involve nuclear weapons. I don't want to be seen as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, but that recent news story about a bomber with nukes being diverted to Louisiana, without anyone knowing the nukes had left North Dakota, to be deeply troubling. I think those warheads may have been headed for Iran for staging, and some honest soul ratted the Bushies out. There is a number of websites that allege this. Google should help you find them, if you are interested.

As people of character, progressives MUST call their Congresspersons TODAY and urge, no BEG them to stop this from happening. If we allow Bush/Cheney to nuke Iran, we are opening a Pandora's box that virtually guarantees that a major American city gets vaporized. COUNT ON IT!!! Your children or your mother, father, brother, sister or cousin may one of the victims of the nuclear holocaust that will almost certainly result...

TCD

Swan, you useless twit - Pale Rider served this country honorably - He is a respected poster - Your attempt to smear him as a Nazi Storm Trooper is disgusting.

You do not make this weblog site better - You lower the standards whenever you post.

My thoughts regarding such as you is to treat them in a Friendly, Useful, Cheerful, and Kindly, manner, you know, such as in ____ 'em.

Millions of Iranians and Iranian Americans think,"Thank Allah that the US is dropping bombs on my homeland and my family"

I can think of one Iranian who will be cheering the US bombing of his homeland, Reza Pahlavi.

Swan said something?

It must have disappeared.

No, I'll keep lining up with the people who oppose this war and who want our troops out of Iraq. There is no need to go double or nothing with Iran in order to try to salvage the Bush legacy.

Iran is wag the dog, writ large. What better way to keep the focus off the monumental failure of a failed President and his sycophantic Republican friends than to start another war and leave it for a Democrat to clean up?

The real end game is this--a Democrat will have to pull those troops out and leave the Middle East with little more than two carrier groups and a 25,000 man response force and then set to the task of rebuilding a force carved out from the inside by incompetence and unnecessary war.

Think about the Iraq war the next time your town or your area in the rural part of this country is beset by floods, fire or natural disaster--there won't be any National Guard to send to help you. Their equipment does not exist anymore. They are down to a handful of vehicles in many units, and most of those aren't worth a damn.

It is rare that I believe the best recording a troll poster can hear is Ray Charles and "Hit the road, Jack".

Brojo: Don't let the fact that Reza Pahlavi wrote an editorial in Le Monde JUST THREE DAYS AGO saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of that keep you from posting. Jesus, are you a stupid twat.

I think we're spending a little too much time talking about what the Air Force and the Navy will do. That's not how the military is organized. Technically, the military departments are responsible for readiness: getting what they need to go to war, such as weapons and personnel and training. It's the Combatant Commands that fight wars. It's Admiral Fallon in the chain of command, not the chiefs of staff.

Somebody mentioned the National Command Authority. The NCA is the President AND the Secretary of Defense. Sure, there could be a Saturday Night Massacre of Bush firing SECDEFs until he gets one to do what he wants, but that's more than a little politically awkward.

Watch Gates and Fallon.

"Most troubling is they'd smartly salute and carpet bomb San Francisco if those were their orders"--Posted by: steve duncan--

I don't get it. What's the problem? Doesn't TCD live there? :-)

pale rider: But it is absurd to think the military is going to revolt. They're not.

elections have consequences...

who didn't fear this type of scenario if gwb remained in office..

so..who is going to stop him from taking us all under?

jj: If the US Army Air Force pilots and US soldiers during World War Two had the sensibility of the modern Movement Conservative, they would have bombed Cuba after the the attack on Pearl Harbor.

you were close..

attacking iraq after 9-11 is like bombing mexico after pearl harbor...

Jesus fscking Christ. This is the quality of the debates we are having? The tactical consequences of different ways bombing Iran inside the US military.

Look.
(a) What matters about bombing Iran is NOT what effect it will have inside the US, on the US military or otherwise and
(b) What matters about bombing Iran is NOT what effect it will have in the world over the next three months or the next two years.

The effect of bombing Iran will be, absolutely and uneqivocally, to make it clear to the entire rest of the world that the US is an out-of-control junkie that cannot be allowed to continue this way. The rest of the consequences will flow from this, slowly but surely, over the next fifty years. Two obvious examples
- as Bush's economic chickens come home to roots, don't expect any help from outside the US.
- this will, quite possibly, stop the energy put into nuclear weapons. But not by making everyone peaceful, oh no. We have not seen yet seen 21st century biological warfare; none of this old-fashioned screwing around with smallpox and anthrax. Do the job right --- design a virus that attacks some genetic trait that's common in your enemy and not in your people, or that has a nice long latency then suddenly erupts, and make sure you have plenty of vaccine available for your people but not outsiders.
Tracking nuclear material is not that hard a problem; tracking biological material and no-how --- not quite so easy!
Don't forget the diaspora of biological scientists outside the US because they want to work on issues like stem cells that Congress has all sorts of weird religious hangups about.

Welcome to the world GWB has bestowed upon us. Fifty years from now we'll be wishing nuclear weapons were all we had to worry about.

richard clarke,

At the time of Pearl Harbor, they were the US Army Air Corps - They didn't become a Force to be reckoned with until later - Although the Army Air Corps was indeed a force to be very highly respected and feared by the enemy.

Well, it's settled then! Bombs Away! Yee-haw! Ain't this a hoot! Dead civilians, you say? Well, if I can't seem'em, they don't exist, now do they? Yee-haw!

Praedor Atrebates: The main weapons source for Iraq is the US, NOT Iran.

"Iraq is becoming one of the United States' larger foreign military sales customers," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 11, noting that Iraq has inked deals to buy $1.6 billion in arms from the U.S., with the "possibility of up to $1.8 billion more."

- Salon.com

Hard, I worked, to develop the disemboweller style of comment. Pie'd off, sure, at first I was, to think a program of soft, outerware, could be devo'd from that limited capability, of my writing, to comment to hijacks, as a way to respond. But I looked back to my childhood and found embracing open sources was like a freeware of love, so with hugs and keeping it simples, thanks.

Oh, for crying over spilled milk.

Liberals were FOR attacking dictators and thugs before they were AGAINST attacking the dictators and thugs whose disappearance would make George W Bush look like an effective President.

Pardon me, courtesy phone for unhinged loonybin liberals out there. There's a dead man named Milosevich calling from a payphone somewhere outside Pristina for you, he has a collect call and a bone to pick with American liberaldom over their selective use of bombs to eliminate genocide-endorsing strongmen who are slight in stature.

I will not countenance anyone insulting my main man Swan. Swan, you give the liberals all the hell they have coming to them--your good friend Norman will be there to back you up and tell you that, while you are thematically wrong from a big picture point of view, your command of esoterica and minuitae is excellent and you are a shining example of the liberal as informed commenter. You make loving the hating of liberals fun for me, sir. I shall take great exception to anyone who doesn't revel in your genius and bask in the glow of your obvious commentary.

Of all the services the Air Force would be the most thrilled. Not only becuase the mission as it is currently discussed, it given to them, but it also seems like the Air Force is staffed with people most likely to share the Bush/Cheney world view (i.e. it is the US God-given mission to bring the world to "our" way of thinking).

will @ 3:15, if i hear those tired talking points one more time i'm gonna scream.

Ah, Normie, what a Kopf you have - Always arbeiting, never merely Toten, er Token, at all.

Only the phony soldiers would refuse.

AIPAC is going to leave no stone unturned to advocate for American blood and treasure. The very first landing contingent should have treasonous Norm Podhoretz and a couple of his fellow "patriots" on board. His fat, hairy son could provide cover for an entire platoon.

http://www.nndb.com/people/426/000048282/

Their's not to question why;
Their's but to do or die.

1. The military is made up of fighting men.
2. The military is mission oriented. Give 'em a mission and it is not their responsibility to analyze the big picture. That's the job of civilian experts like Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld and the Decider.
3. A professional military is probably more of a tool of the executive than a drafted military.

Now, no more bad words for Mr. Swan. He is a blogger, not just a commenter, and that means something in this world.

Swan--please pay attention.

I, Norman Rogers, will be there with Kleenex if they upset you and draw tears, bandaids if they draw blood, and a wet wipe in case they throw feces at you, sir.

Ah, Normie, what a Kopf you have - Always arbeiting, never merely Toten, er Token, at all.

Is this gibberish? Only the insane can fathom what you're talking about.

1. The military is made up of fighting men.

and Women.

2. The military is mission oriented. Give 'em a mission and it is not their responsibility to analyze the big picture. That's the job of civilian experts like Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld and the Decider.

2 of those 3 are now gone--thanks to pressure from Democrats, not the media. The military is results oriented. And more analysis occurs than you or your simple-minded pals can possibly comprehend.

3. A professional military is probably more of a tool of the executive than a drafted military.

No, the "military" is under civilian control. Your military is not going to turn on you dumbasses and start killing people in the name of Bush/Cheney. Your military is not going to drop nuclear weapons on anyone willy nilly. And your military follows orders, so long as those are lawful orders.

What a buncha dumbassess today.

Is the theme song from "Green Acres" playing where you people are? Because I can't get that song out of my head now. It plays over and over again, as a testament to how stupid you people really are.

Hicks, I tell you. Hicks.

Dealing with you liberals today is like dealing with people who should be wearing a dirty shirt in line to buy muffler parts at Wal-Mart. I'm reminded of the time I purchased a seat belt manufacturing plant in Skokie, Illinois as part of a larger deal to transfer automobile parts manufacturing to the people at Hyundai without running afoul of some piece of protectionist claptrap passed by Tip O'Neill and his Tammany hall gangsters. The erstwhile President of the company came to see me, we shook hands, and the man was wearing a suit from JCPenny's. A two hundred dollar suit that a common man would wear to church. It was made of polyester. It was worn with a threadbare tie and a shirt worn at the collar. No cufflinks, of course--the cut was most decidedly not French cuff. And his shoes--my God, the man's shoes hadn't been polished in a year. They looked like the shoes of a flat footed beat cop who hasn't caught a perp in years. His socks? Who cares. Ugh, the experience was profoundly disturbing.

The horror of that encounter--it leaves me with chills. Chills...

This will-o'-wisp hope that either generals or the rank-and-file will resist orders attacking Iran is, frankly, more troubling that the fact that, when ordered, they will attack Iran.

That's not how it works. The military doesn't get a vote. If the order is lawful -- and if it comes from the President and does not violate the laws of war, it is lawful -- it will be carried out.

And yes -- the military WOULD carpet bomb San Francisco if lawfully ordered to do so. Note that the military oath specifically addresses DOMESTIC enemies.

"I, ____, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Title 10, United States Code

Officers' oaths include the following: "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter."

And before we get all the Heil Bush, etc., it is the United States Congress that is responsible for writing and revising military law under Article I of the Constitution. So if you weren't paying attention in Civics class, don't start bitching now.

And I say again -- if you don't want war with Iran, and you want the war with Iraq to end, look to your elected political leadership.

Anyone here heard Hillary talk about ending the war lately?

[Apologies to the last two or three commenters on this thread. The link-spam cleanup caught your comments. You have not offended in any way, it was a glitch.]

Musings from the "We support the troops" leftosphere.

I think the Air Force has established a pretty solid track record of inter-service jealousy and eagerness to promise more than it can deliver. When the war drums quiet down a bit, I would like to discuss why this is--probably having something to do with a sense of immunity when flying over targets bereft of effective defenses--but in the meantime, it makes sense to be skeptical of pilots' ability or inclination to say no to another career-building war crime.

Rivalries in the military ranks.

Yeah, when Tailgate became news, the Air Force in Colorado Springs, yelled, "But, we can do better

The Air Force has been infiltrated with Evangelical Christian warriors, who will be more than just honored to begin a massive murder campaign against Iranians. They think it is their duty to God to kill Shiites and prepare for the Second Coming of Christ. Like the Arab suicide bombers our culture is so fearful of, the Air Force Christian warriors will be killing for an eternal reward. There are few rational arguments that can rebut heavenly payoffs, and the Evangelical flyboys are immune to them. They will obey their god. Allah forgive them.

Al, remember the old joke, "Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? A: Easy, when his lips are moving." OK, substitute any military officer for the lawyer in that quip and you know what you need to know about the military defending Bush policy.

The question for me is how heavily evangelical has the Air Force brass become? Are they buying into the mindset of many of the far right Christian zionists who believe that this is necessary for the future of Israel? Is this really just the next step in an undclared crusade?

If the US Army Air Force pilots and US soldiers during World War Two had the sensibility of the modern Movement Conservative, they would have bombed Cuba after the the attack on Pearl Harbor.

if the White House decides to bomb Iran, "the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions."

I always figured that they'd have the CIA do it, just like in Cambodia.

Most troubling is they'd smartly salute and carpet bomb San Francisco if those were their orders.

Of all the services the Air Force would be the most thrilled. Not only becuase the mission as it is currently discussed, it given to them, but it also seems like the Air Force is staffed with people most likely to share the Bush/Cheney world view (i.e. it is the US God-given mission to bring the world to "our" way of thinking).

Only the phony soldiers would refuse.

Their's not to question why;
Their's but to do or die.

1. The military is made up of fighting men.
2. The military is mission oriented. Give 'em a mission and it is not their responsibility to analyze the big picture. That's the job of civilian experts like Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld and the Decider.
3. A professional military is probably more of a tool of the executive than a drafted military.

I initially found Matt Yglesias' statement about the Air Force to be both simplistic and sophomoric.

Upon further reflection, Dr. Stranglove's overcaffeinated and gung-ho Gen. Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) was a contemporary lampoon based in large part on the real-life persona of a certified Cold War-era lunatic, Gen. Curtis LeMay.

Nuf ced.

Now, now. Let's just draw a deep breath and relax, folks; the Rapture Index is at 155 today, down from a 2007 high of 163.

So we've got some time.

Of all the services the Air Force would be the most thrilled. Not only becuase the mission as it is currently discussed, it given to them, Posted by: majarosh

This may be true except that the only thing the air force brings to this equation is Stealth bombers. Otherwise, I would think most of the initial attack would be as it was in Iraq and the first Gulf War - sea based cruise missiles. Only after command and control is destroyed or significantly impaired do either the air force or navy commit regular (non-stealth) aircraft. This would be even more important versus Iran because they, unlike Iraq, have an air force. Though no firm details exist on its composition today, it probably contains recent generations of Russian and Chinese copy MiGs.

I cannot find Pahlavi's remark regarding the US bombing Iran. No link?

Probably, creating the Air Force from the Army Air Corps was another bipartisan achievement.

Yes, the Air Force would be eager to do the job.
The Army, however, does oppose the move strongly.
Why? Because it would be the Army, not the Air Force, that would have to deal with the blowback from an attack, in Iraq and elsewhere. The Army understands that it does not have the available resources needed to control the situation once everything starts to go kablooey.
Finally, if you watch Fallon and Gates, you will miss what matters. They do oppose military action within Iran.
They are not likely to resign beforehand, however, because that would tip our hand to the Iranians that an attack was coming and thus and raise the odds of U.S. personnel being killed.
They would resign afterward.

See: Cy Vance, resigning as secretary of state AFTER the botched raid by Carter.

[Apologies to the last two or three commenters on this thread. The link-spam cleanup caught your comments. You have not offended in any way, it was a glitch.]Posted by: on October 1

Too many "tinny words"?

Caribou. Vole. Ocelot. Intercourse. All nice "woody words."

Here you go dramatic-and-as-always-laughably-uninformed little Brojo. A link to the op-ed in LeMonde. I realize with Le Monde being one of the biggest and most important newspaper in France, it was probably hard for you to find it on the internet. If you need any help finding the websites of the New York Times, you just ask, buddy. Happy to help.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-957945,0.html

No, JeffII, more like Trojan Pack.

In the days of the Army Air Corps, there was a diddy, "Into the air, Junior Birdmen" - When Eric Prince of Blackhawk gets B-52s, B-ls and 2s, they will change it to "Into the air, Junior Mercmen" - Hot line from Cheney to North Carolina.

marc & hemlock

You are completely right.

A US officer, in any service, will not disobey a legal order from his superiors.

And he won't be consulting law professors to decide if bombing Iran is legal. If his boss tells him it's legal, he'll believe it to be legal. Even if he has reservations, he will execute.

If a legal order comes from a superior officer it will be executed. Without question. Regardless of his personal opinion regarding that decision.

All militaries work that way. The ones that don't are in rag bag dictatorships.

That's the difference between a military and a civilian organisation. In the military, orders are orders. Failing to execute an order could be constituted as treason: still a capital offence in the United Kingdom (and the only one).

In the UK, the officer is technically loyal to the sovereign, Her Majesty not the Prime Minister. So if Gordon Brown asked him to nuke New York or some other irrational act, he could technically refuse, and a subsequent courts martial would find him guilty or not guilty. In the US, Bush is the Commander in Chief, so the only defence an officer would have is that he or she believed the order to be illegal.

The Joint Chiefs and Admiral Fallon have the option of resigning. The guy who did the planning for Iraq (a Marine lieutenant general) did so. But they will not, publicly, say why they are resigning if they believe it would compromise operational security. In fact, they would probably stay on to execute the mission, and then resign.

According to an earlier piece by Seymour Hersh, the Joint Chiefs supposedly did offer to resign over a proposed use of nuclear weapons against Iran. They felt they were trapped into presenting the option to Bush 'for completeness' but they never intended it to be considered as a practical option.

If the President did give the order to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, I have no doubt the B2 pilots would do the job-- they've trained all their lives for this moment. If you read Larry Johnson, he reckons those 6 nuclear devices 'lost' and mistakenly transported by B52s, were actually a dry run. Armscontrolwonk.com is much more sceptical of that story, suggesting it was bureaucratic SNAFU. Reading some of the comments from ex USAF guys, I suspect acw has the right of it.

It's all academic anyways, as undoubtedly the Air Force believes they can do the mission with conventional weapons. The model is Libya 1986-- counter terrorism by airpower, and they will argue it worked well with Quaddafi.

It also will entrench the mullahs as the government of Iran for the next 100 years: just as Bush's popularity would soar if Iran bombed Texas.

If you've read 'Red Light on Capitol Hill' in Harpers (Silverstein's blog) there is an opinion by an ex-CIA guy that it is all systems go: Norfolk Harbor full of ships being loaded with munitions, key naval air guys out of touch simultaneously.

Sometime in the next 90-120 days I should think. Long nights play to the advantage of the US and US Special Forces, with their night vision and deep radar capabilities.

I believe that the "revolt" is a reference to resignations (threatened or actual) by the generals; not to the individual pilots/crews refusing to perform their missions.

Norman Rogers: "Is the theme song from 'Green Acres' playing where you people are? Because I can't get that song out of my head now. It plays over and over again, as a testament to how stupid you people really are. Hicks, I tell you. Hicks."

Looks like Norman has finally found his inner queen, and is successfully channeling Joan Collins as Alexis Colby in Dynasty.

You go, girl!

Silence

I can only speak for myself majarosh, but the only way to support the troops is to insist they come home, now.

If the troops are willing to obey and attack Iran, then I will oppose their service. I oppose their sacrifice in Iraq, but, more importantly, I oppose their killing Iraqis.

Brojo: What don't you get about the concept?

Contract
Obligation
Law
Oath

Troops don't take oaths to NOT kill people. They take an oath TO kill people -- "to support and defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."

Voice of America and Fiasco at Persian Service.
There is no need to attack Iran IF the Bush administration pays attention:
Millions of dollars are spent in Persian Service of Voice of America but the end result is nothing but scandalous way of cockamamie management and programming.
It is hard to believe but the Persian Service which supposed to be an organization to convey the policy of the U.S. has become a free platform for hard-line terrorist group of communists who attack the United Sates!
I have the documents in writings to prove that these were done with the full knowledge of the management.
I used to work there and as I said before, I have all the documents in writings.
The manager is a woman called Sheila Gandji who can not read and write Persian. Therefore, in order to hide this shortcoming from the higher management, she has hired an eighty something man called Kambiz Mahmoudi who has a lengthy background as crook and in charlatanism.
You expect a doctor to be in charge of a medical clinic. You expect an engineer to be in charge of an engineering department. You expect a plumber to fix your plumbing.
So why do you expect a person who has no education in Iran and doesn't know the language of that country should be in charge of publicity, literature or politic for such position?
Sheila Gandji falsely pretended and presented herself as educated with background in journalism. These are absolute fabrications. Nobody in Iranian communities inside of the country or outside has any knowledge about her being a journalist, then and now.
Her partner, Kambiz Mahmoudi is a hateful and despicable person whose activities as crook are widely known through out Iran. Can't the U.S. government appoint somebody without such shameful background and baggage?
Don’t think that this is a personal vendetta.
Let me quote you a view from another media:
"The Iran Steering group concluded that much of the anti-American perspective that is broadcast is the result of decisions made by station managers in Washington D.C. and Prague. Sheila Gandji, the manager of Persian service has faced sharp criticism, particularly for her decision to stop VOA shortwave radio program in July, 2006 in order to focus on television broadcasts, which are more susceptible to censorship, since the government regularly confiscates satellites dishes in order to prevent the infiltration of foreign broadcasts."
And this is not the only one. The mismanagement at the Persian Service of Voice of America is the subject of hundreds of web sites and articles in newspapers indicative of disgusts and ridicules in the world about VOA.
The bizarre situation at the Persian Service of Voice of America caused even the Republican Senator Coburn to write a long letter to President Bush about the fiasco there.
It is only in America where the government pays to be insulted. Really, why Voice of America is doing this harm to our nation?

I don't usually post long passages rather than just give a link, but here's the form letter from the majority whip in response to my expression of outrage over his Kyl-Lieberman vote. I will refrain from all obvious commentary and leave it at:

Ugh. We are screwed.

_______________

Thank you for contacting me about the possibility of an armed conflict between the United States and Iran.

I understand why this situation worries you. Using military force should always be the last option in an international dispute, and I do not believe we have reached that point with regard to Iran. Our Constitution states that only Congress has the authority to declare war. If the President reaches the conclusion that we should go to war with Iran or any other nation, he must seek and gain Congressional authorization before doing so.

The possibility that Iran intends to develop or acquire nuclear weapons presents the United States with a very real national security concern. European nations and the broader international community share that concern, and convincing Iran's leaders to abide by their nation's commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has proved problematic.

I believe that we must use the political and economic tools at our disposal to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. That is why I joined with Senators Gordon Smith and Frank Lautenberg in introducing S. 970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This bill would tighten economic sanctions on Iran until it dismantles all nuclear enrichment and reprocessing programs. It would also prohibit the United States from entering into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia until that country stops exporting nuclear and military technology to Iran.

Iran's leaders face a choice between the peaceful development of nuclear power for their citizens and the dangerous development of nuclear weapons. This legislation provides pressure and incentives to help them choose the path to peace and nuclear non-proliferation.

This situation is further complicated by deep concerns about the policy our nation is pursuing in Iraq and the extent to which Iran may be involving itself in the conflict there. The war in Iraq is now in its fifth year. It has exacted a huge toll on our country and our armed forces. It is time for us to end our open-ended commitment and to start bringing our troops home.

Americans cannot win an Iraqi civil war, and we need to implement a strategy that gives the Iraqis a chance to build a government that stands on its own. I support legislation that would emphasize diplomatic initiatives to restore peace in Iraq and prevent a regional conflict in the Middle East. This approach would also intensify the training of Iraqi security forces so that they can more quickly assume control of their own country, and require the Iraqi government to adhere to specific conditions in order to continue to receive economic assistance from the United States. Escalation of the war will only increase the costs for our taxpayers and troops, prolong our involvement in Iraq, and send the wrong message to the Iraqis without pressuring them to make the political compromises necessary to bring their country together.

I will keep your concerns in mind as I monitor the situation in Iran and work to bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as possible. Thanks again for your message.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

If any bombs drop on Iran, then Iraq next door will go from bad to much, much worse.

Obviously no one in the blindingly stupid Bush administration has read anything about the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s.

Hopefully, though, some of the top Pentagon brass, especially in the U.S. Air Force, realize that our soldiers on the ground in Iraq will face wave upon wave of Iranians who will cross the border into Iraq to seek revenge against our nearest forces on the ground, just as the Iranians will launch wave upon wave of suicide attackers against shipping in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Some are bound to get through. U.S. sailors will die. A huge oil slick will cover the waters. Our soldiers in Iraq will face a Shia Iraqi and Shia Irani insurgency with the only choice left to the U.S. being to side with the Sunni Iraqis and Iraqi Kurds, essentially escalating the Middle East war that Bush started beyond anything imaginable, surpassing even the hostilities and horror of the 1980s war between the Iranians and Iraqis. Even the Russians and Chinese might decide to get involved and stir the seething oil pot.

Is Bush nuts? Is Cheney nuts? Are the Pentagon brass nuts?

I guess we'll find out shortly.

So a question...setting aside the nuke issue for a minute...Iran is actively putting their Quds Force guys into Iraq (we keep snagging them) and moving munitions into Iraq and providing training that is killing our guys. How should we respond?

How does the American contribution to the killing in Iraq support and defend the constitution? I do not understand.

The US should respond to attacks in Iraq by leaving. The attacks on the US are not occurring in the US, but in Iraq. The right thing to do is remove our citizens from a hostile environment.

If the US truly does a Pearl Harbor attack on Iran, the rest of the world will hopefully respond with the appropriate economic and diplomatic sanctions. The US should be kicked out of the UN and become a pariah nation.

So a question...setting aside the nuke issue for a minute...Iran is actively putting their Quds Force guys into Iraq (we keep snagging them) and moving munitions into Iraq and providing training that is killing our guys. How should we respond?

Actually, I do not know any of these things. I have been told these things by the same people who told me that Iraq had WMD's. But I have seen no evidence of such.

I have not had clearance for years, and would not have "need to know" in any case; but I do know people who do have clearance and need to know, and so far as what they can tell me, they have seen no definitive evidence, either.

So, I am left wondering, and not presuming I am being told the truth.

The US should respond to attacks in Iraq by leaving. The attacks on the US are not occurring in the US, but in Iraq. The right thing to do is remove our citizens from a hostile environment.

Iran is killing Americans now, and not on Iranian soil.

And as to how should we respond? By extricating ourselves from the situation?

We simul-posted.

Iran has acknowledged the capture of their people openly, declaring them to be diplomats of course. And the EFPs are definitely coming from Iran and/or the training to make them. The hit on the 5 US Army officers where they were abducted and killed is known to have been Iranian motivated. Even if they didn't have nuke envy, they are being "extremely unhelpful".

I am holding a high bar of evidence that has not been met. And I am not the one who poisoned the trust.

Well, it is going on. And there is a hell of a lot of smoke (captured agents, EFPs, overt responses like capturing Brit sailors, long history of terrorism support, etc.) that points directly at fire. Do your military friends really feel that Iran isn't meddling to the point that US soldiers aren't dying for it?

When the dems take the Whitehouse hopefully your trust will be restored.

I thought it funny when Iran declared the US Army a terrorist organization. Good, maybe they'll fund it too.

I recall the US supplied weapons and training to the al Queda of the Eighties to kill Soviet soldiers who occupied Afghanistan. Many Americans considered that a worthwhile cause and did not think the Soviet Union would launch a sneak nuclear attack on the US for supplying the ways and means to kill its occupying soldiers. The American leadership calling for a strike against Iran are not even as decent as Brezhnev Soviets.

You know that was in response to the declaration of the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It's all so much Kabuki, and we both know it.

You also know that there has been ongoing engagement with the Iranians below the CNN line since the earliest days of engagement in Iraq, and only the truly or willfully ignorant pretend otherwise.

Do your military friends really feel that Iran isn't meddling to the point that US soldiers aren't dying for it?

As they can for the most part read a map, and know where blame for this clusterfuck truly lies, Iran-hatred is farther down their lists than a few other contributing factors.

SJRSM

You've drunk the Kool-aid on this one.

'they're killing our boys. Communist (I mean Iranian) infiltrators, IEDs, pouring across the borders.'

Read Sy Hersh. This is the pretext for war. But the reality is the evidence is not definitive (a bit like Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction). They can't produce real, hard evidence (and if they did, it wouldn't necessarily be a pretext for war). What is probably happening is the Iranians are playing all sides, and that includes backing people who kill Americans (but are really arming for the final showdown with the Sunnis).

What you've done is trot out the propaganda line that the Administration will use as the cover for war. They can't argue the Iranians have imminent nukes, so they're going to go for the 'war on terror'/ 'terrorism' angle.

The Americans arming Sunni militias will make the Iranians even more uppity, and cause them to get even more involved on behalf of the Shia.

I am so confused.

Iraq borders on Iran and has always been in their sphere of interest and influence. Iran is by far the most populated country between Turkey and Pakistan and on the Gulf.

And the US isn't meddling to the point of killing thousands? Or meddling in internal Iranian affairs?

The US has killed large numbers of Iraqis, and not on US soil. As the occupying power the US has failed to supply security and law enforcement (right from the get-go) for the population. In fact they have ignored all their obligations under international law, and the war itself was a crime. And, as the occupying power, we can't be at "war" with the populace. Fighting an insurgency is completely different from warfare, as it has taken the US 4 years to realize.

The US has been stirring things up for the Iranians since 1979 'cos they're pissed off the people finally threw off the yoke of a 25-year brutal and heartless dictator, installed directly as a result of a CIA effort replacing a democratically elected government, and who had created a complete political and democratic vacuum the Ayatollah filled. Iran suffered a lengthy and costly war started by Iraq and supported by the US, including WMD help. The US have snubbed and ignored Iran and, particularly this administration, tried to treat them as if they have no value as a nation. We threaten them with pointless embargoes, airstrikes and worse.

Gosh. What's not to be pissed with the US about?

And there is not the same emnity between the Iranis and Iraqis as the US seems to hold against Iran.

But we're right. Might makes right. We own the world. Everyone should do what we want for our benefit while we shit on them. We're bringing them all "freedom", "democracy" and "capitalism" for their benefit. Riiiight.

And I've got a bridge . . . Oh. Right. Somebody already bought it.

You guys are all full of it. Blinded by ideology.

"[I]t is absurd to think the military is going to revolt. They're not."
_______________________

palerider is correct: There is no chance of a military revolt. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that the military would argue long and hard against any strike against Iran. Here are some reasons:

1. They'll want to know what the "mission objective" is. If they don't think it is attainable, the Joint Chiefs and USCENTCOM will say so. This is especially true while we still engaged in a war that has been plagued with numerous "mission objective" changes.

2. Dropping bombs on scattered targets along the border won't stop Iranian interference in Iraq. It doesn't take much infrastructure to sneak small numbers of personnel and IED material across the border. We'd just solidify the Iranian leadership in their positions.

3. Taking out the Iranian nuclear capability would require an extended air campaign, targeting much more than nuclear facilities. The joint air campaign (it would take both the Air Force and the Navy) would first concentrate on Iranian air defenses, meaning airfields, radar, and command and control nodes to establish complete air dominance. Only then would the campaign concentrate on nuclear facilities. Much of these are well hidden and hardened, thus requiring multiple strikes to ensure success. Then too, much of the nuclear infrastructure is imbedded within cities. Arguments to the contrary, nobody wants to see the enormous collateral damage bombing facilities in cities would cause.

No, there wouldn't be a revolt. The military would follow the orders of the civilian authorities above it. But they would argue long and hard against any attack that would likely do more harm than good.

Still, keeping military options on the table is always important in diplomatic situations. That is probably why bombing gets mentioned so frequently.

Iran has acknowledged the capture of their people openly, declaring them to be diplomats of course.

How many times has the President of Iraq visited Iran? How many Iraqi Shiite politicians have visited Iran? Dozens of times. So if there are open, friendly relations between the democratically elected government of Iraq and the democratically elected government of Iran, there is simply no possibility that there would be Iranian diplomats in Iraq, is that what you're saying? Because the first thing every single American needs to know is that Iraq's government--Maliki, Talabani, etc.--are meeting openly with Iranian leaders, travelling back and forth between the two countries, and have installed Sharia law, in accordance with Shia practices in Iran. They have an OPEN BORDER between the Shia south of Iraq and Iran. But you sneer at the possibility that there are diplomats from Iran in Iraq?

And the EFPs are definitely coming from Iran and/or the training to make them.

Another fallacy is that the Explosively Formed Penetrators are all coming from Iran. Actually, they're coming from all over the Middle East. They're coming from virtually every single place that manufactures--get this--copper bowls. Because that's all an EFP really is--a copper bowl. It was invented in 1885. It's so basic, a clown could make an EFP. But to hear it told, Iran is the sinister manufacturer of a device that has been known about by anyone literate for a 122 years.

At last check, a copper bowl is not exactly difficult to manufacture. It is slightly more difficult to make than it's predecessor, the copper plate. And it's far more difficult to make than the original copper slab.

The hit on the 5 US Army officers where they were abducted and killed is known to have been Iranian motivated. Even if they didn't have nuke envy, they are being "extremely unhelpful".

Who attacked Iran in 1988 and shot up their oil platforms? Who shot their airliner out of the sky? Who is responsible for the overthrow of their government and the installation of the Shah of Iran?

We have been quite nasty to each other going back a long ways. If we were smart, we'd foment a velvet revolution in Iran and de-legitimize their regime by spreading the thing we do best, which is our soft culture, our books, movies, music, video games and we'd tap into their love of sports. We'd have exchanges and diplomacy.

Instead, we have belligerent idiots who can't put two and two together. You bomb Iran, you unite them behind their crackpot government. As soon as the first bomb hits, you legitimize their mullahs as defenders of Iranian nationalism.

So quit with the propaganda--the NYT has no credibility on issues like this. Yes--weapons are coming in from Iran and they are being used against US troops. Show some fucking consistency and acknowledge that millions in funds, tons of weaponry and actual fighting insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have stated publicly that they will not allow the Shia to eradicate the Iraqi Sunni population.

When do we bomb Riyadh?

...there is simply no possibility that there would be Iranian diplomats in Iraq, is that what you're saying?...But you sneer at the possibility that there are diplomats from Iran in Iraq?

No, I'm not saying that, so don't get stuck on "sneer". I'm saying these guys were picked up during spec ops raids at night in bad places, and being diplomats is their BS cover story.

Another fallacy is that the Explosively Formed Penetrators are all coming from Iran.

It is not a fallacy and you should at least stop carrying water for them. Let them make their own argument disclaiming it.

Who attacked Iran in 1988 and shot up their oil platforms? Who shot their airliner out of the sky? Who is responsible for the overthrow of their government and the installation of the Shah of Iran?

So you're OK with "tit for tat" and it is their turn to kill some of ours? Like we are morally equivalent?

You bomb Iran, you unite them behind their crackpot government. As soon as the first bomb hits, you legitimize their mullahs as defenders of Iranian nationalism.

You run away, you legitimize their tactics, again. They've been chasing us out of countries for years, they know where we are weak.

When do we bomb Riyadh?

Show me where the fuck I said we should bomb Iran, and I'll tell you when the fuck we should bomb Riyadh. My original point, which I will make again for those such as yourself who lack reading comprehension, is that apart from their nuke program Iran is directly acting to kill our people. How should we respond? Your response is to bury your head in the sand and pretend they aren't doing it.
Posted by: Pale Rider

No, I'm not saying that, so don't get stuck on "sneer". I'm saying these guys were picked up during spec ops raids at night in bad places, and being diplomats is their BS cover story.

What Special Operations troops captured them? Which SF Group if they were Army or which SEAL team if they were Navy? First of all, I don't accept anything these people tell me anymore. They're paying the Lincoln Group to actively lie in the media throughout the world about what is going on over there. They censor blogs and news sources that offer differing points of view to the troops. This notion that Special Operations troops are operating without command and control is an outgrowth of the Cheney-Rumsfeld mindset--they created the SOCOM command as its own entity and gave it its own G-3 to conduct planning and operations. Traditionally, these guys had a command and control that ended with the theater commander. That's gone. Now we have them raiding places and conducting operations outside of traditional controls. Who can believe anything anymore? The best way for them to be genuine about what they are doing is to make the process more transparent--quit paying people to lie, quit giving no-bid contracts to Triple Canopy and Blackwater and put Special Operations troops BACK under the command and control of the theater commander, where it belongs.

It is not a fallacy and you should at least stop carrying water for them. Let them make their own argument disclaiming it.

Oh, fuck off--you carry so much water, your back is broken. Iran's ruling leadership is a sorry pack of liars. They'll say anything. You want them gone--go the velvet revolution route. The Iranian people hate their leaders--help them get rid of their leaders from within.

So you're OK with "tit for tat" and it is their turn to kill some of ours? Like we are morally equivalent?

Please--you're eyes are stained brown with your own rising bullshit. This is the original "tit for tat" administration. "Saddam Hussein tried to kill my Dad." Remember when Bush said that? Our moral equivalence comes from the fact that we don't torture, we don't violate human rights, we don't indiscriminately kill civilians and we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Oh WAIT! The people you carry all that water for sure FUCKED that up, didn't they? Well, what's left? Tit for fucking tat, huh?

You run away, you legitimize their tactics, again. They've been chasing us out of countries for years, they know where we are weak.

Run AWAY? Like Reagan ran away? Like Bush wants to run away but can't? These people do not engage the region with serious diplomacy. They don't go the third party route for high ranking envoys to negotiate with extra-national powers like Hamas and Hezbollah. We have people in Jordan, Egypt and the UAE who would gladly go and talk to these people on our behalf. There are thousands of UN diplomats who actually do what we need them to do every day--but we have the original UN-hating administration. They would go to Syria, they would go wherever we asked them to go. Our State Department is a falling down shambles of incompetence. We should be using the carrot, not the stick. The carrot is what gets shit done. The stick? We're paying for the use of the stick right now--thousands of dead Americans and tens of thousands of wounded. The only people who run away from their mess are Republicans.

Show me where the fuck I said we should bomb Iran, and I'll tell you when the fuck we should bomb Riyadh. My original point, which I will make again for those such as yourself who lack reading comprehension, is that apart from their nuke program Iran is directly acting to kill our people. How should we respond? Your response is to bury your head in the sand and pretend they aren't doing it.

Show me where the fuck it matters what you think. Iran is directly responsible for killing our people because it is in their interest to destabilize Iraq by supporting Shia over Sunni. In order to stop that, we should get our goddamned troops out of that civil war and leverage against the Iranians with every kind of economic and diplomatic tool we have. Why aren't we doing more to cause their oil industry to completely collapse? Why aren't we able to pursuade the Chinese and the Russians to abandon their energy deals with Iran and use other sources, like Nigeria and Venezuela?

Oh--that's right! Because the Bush administration has no foreign policy acumen, it cannot practice basic statecraft, and we keep swinging the stick. Well, the stick has come round and clocked us, hasn't it? And until we put down the stick and get back to behaving as an adult on the world stage--and get back our moral authority to pursuade other nations to abandon Fourth Generation assymetrical warfare as a means to achieve their goals--we're going fill up more cememtaries and kill thousands more people.

Dumbass...

Cue RSM's wimpy demands for "civilized" discourse and his plea that we cannot achieve anything from ad hominem.

I can now fucking ad hominem till the cows come home. According to the Republicans, I am a "phony soldier" and I am un-American because I oppose this war. I'm wrong to point out that our good friends the Saudis have killed Americans via their proxies the Sunnis because the Saudis are our "allies."

RSM, you're a pant load and you don't even know which pants carry the load, do you?

No, I'm not saying that, so don't get stuck on "sneer". I'm saying these guys were picked up during spec ops raids at night in bad places, and being diplomats is their BS cover story.

No they weren't. Why don't you ever have your facts straight? Is it intentional or are you just careless? In the most recent incident the Iranian was abducted by U.S. forces from his hotel room. The Iranians "captured" last January were taken from the government liaison office where they worked every day at the request of and with the permission of the Iraqi government. And the December raids took a guy from an official consulate vehicle after he left a funeral at a mosque and others from the home of the Chairman of the Iraqi Parliament Security Committee where they have been staying at his request.

All of these attacks were undertaken without proper notification of the Iraqi authorities; all of the abductees had visas and permission to be in the country; and in every case the Iraqi government has verified their status as diplomats, defended the Iranians' work in the country and demanded they be released.

Next.

At every level Iraqi officials have denied the U.S. claim of Iranian criminal involvement in Iraq -- from the offices of President, Prime Minister, and Ambassador on down to the Kurdish leaders and even local governors -- and yet the Bush administration pushes this meme without evidence. The government of Iraq is either sovereign or it's not. Incidents like these wherein the U.S. flouts the authority of Iraqis leaders and Iraqi law underscores the cynical nature of this undertaking. Basically we're saying that the Iraqis can have their little constitutional government with its elected leaders -- as long as they play by our rules.

So much for this being a noble undertaking.

pale rider: I'm wrong to point out that our good friends the Saudis have killed Americans via their proxies the Sunnis because the Saudis are our "allies."

just to underline...

Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.

By Ned Parker Times Staff Writer - July 15, 2007

Disturbingly, nearly half of Iraqis (predominantly Sunni Arabs) say it's acceptable for al Qaeda in Iraq to attack U.S. and coalition forces. - ABC/NHK/BBC survey of Iraqi's Summer-2007

and more americans have died in iraq since saddam was captured and executed ...than in all his time in power...

but the problem is iran, right sjrsm?

Who is responsible for the overthrow of their government and the installation of the Shah of Iran?

Assuming that by "the Shah of Iran" you are referring to Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, he was "installed" by hereditary succession when his father abdicated under the compulsion of the Anglo-Soviet invasion and occupation of Iran in 1941.

Though you are probably not actually referring to installing the Shah of Iran, but instead to supporting and sponsoring the self-coup he executed from the throne against the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Though you are probably not actually referring to installing the Shah of Iran, but instead to supporting and sponsoring the self-coup he executed from the throne against the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh.

Well, Duh.

Don't you think that's the part that inflames Iranian nationalism today?

"Their's not to question why;
Their's is but to do or die."

Deadly sheeple. What a fascinating concept.

Well, Pale, way I understood it was that the common Iranian was plenty "Westernized" compared to the neighbours before the latest stupidity. Whatever Iran might be doing vis a vis American forces - those cheery lads who imprison and torture the invited guests of Iraqis - even if it isn't just alleged mischief is surely offset by the U.S. funding of Iranian insurrection. That Al Qaida and the gang are still in American employ just adds to the usual jolly dysfunction.

Cue RSM's wimpy demands for "civilized" discourse and his plea that we cannot achieve anything from ad hominem.

OK, home court rules. Fuck you too you water carrying hate-blinded useful idiot for the Mullahs. They love you and yours...doing their work for them.

Iran is directly responsible for killing our people because it is in their interest to destabilize Iraq by supporting Shia over Sunni. In order to stop that, we should get our goddamned troops out of that civil war and leverage against the Iranians with every kind of economic and diplomatic tool we have.

So why did it take so long for you to agree with me and actually answer the fucking question?

Hold on, I'll answer that one myself. Because you're a fucking moron. Ready, fire, aim.

Iran is directly responsible for killing our people because it is in their interest to destabilize Iraq

That is a lie. The US is directly responsible for killing Iraqis because it is in their best oil interest to destabilize Iraq.

Fuck you too you water carrying hate-blinded useful idiot for the Mullahs. They love you and yours...doing their work for them.

Yeah, I'm carrying water for them by encouraging their overthrow because they're corrupt and out of touch with their people. Last time I checked, calling for the overthrow of someone wasn't carrying water for them--it was called "calling for their overthrow." Your grasp of basic concepts sort of goes out the window when you try using insults. Sorry, bub. Insults are my vocation.

So why did it take so long for you to agree with me and actually answer the fucking question?
Hold on, I'll answer that one myself. Because you're a fucking moron. Ready, fire, aim.

If you had any grasp on the obvious, you'd see that we cannot use military power to achieve our goals--that military power will be countered by assymetrical/Fourth Generation warfare that is used as a tactic to mitigate our overwhelming military superiority. This is why future wars will have to be quick, devastating actions that leave no vulnerable troops to occupy a territory.

Once we've established that what you advocate is to blindly follow the same people who created the clusterfuck in Iraq and what I advocate takes skill and statecraft to achieve, one can see that the demarcation line between where we stand on these issues is clear. I advocate using proxies and third parties to achieve results, you advocate dropping bombs.

"Shock and Awe" has achieved exactly what in the Middle East?