Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on January 03, 2010, 11:17:24 PM
-
Seems to me that President Bush started increasing troop levels in Afghanistan a year before he left office.
Obama has kept many if not all the senior military guys from the Bush administration on board.
Obama talks about withdrawal dates but really, does anyone believe the guy when he makes such statements?
Not to say he isn't bad for the union or that Bush was as dangerous to the union as he is, Obama is truly worse.
Yet there seems to be some continuity in some aspects of our military adventures that I find surprising.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunshopfinder.com%2FEMILY.jpg&hash=582c235f2d76de5fbe1bfb46b006ac547f64cd2e)
Never mind.
-
I expect this year will see the Israeli's bomb Iran, thanks in no small part to Obama cutting Israel off at the knees.
This is the same Obama that increased our aid funding by 250 million dollars?
-
Obama doesn't want to win the wars, but he really doesn't want to be blamed for losing them. So he puts on a show of continuing to support the war efforts, even to include risking more servicemen, but he's not in it to win it. He delays, he dithers, he projects weakness, he denies the military what they need to do a proper job. But he looks like he's trying, so he gets exactly what he wants. War is lost, he isn't blamed.
-
This is the same Obama that increased our aid funding by 250 million dollars?
Hey, who do you think you are to interject in this discussion? And how dare you question the popular political analysis of Obama's foreign policy in regards to Israel! Most board members are much more knowledgeable about Israel that you could ever be! :mad:
=D
(If anyone's sarcasm meter is broken, yes, I am being sarcastic and not launching a personal attack against MB.)
-
I think the trying to make nice with Israel's avowed enemy is more important than some aid money. Now of course Iran has told everyone who hammered out that uranium agreement to go pound sand and of course scheduled the obligatory military exercise to demonstrate their resolve to defeat the great Satan.
Maybe Obama can talk out of both sides of his mouth until he gets us out of this. [popcorn]
-
So giving Israel an extra 250 mil is supposed to negate anything else Obama has done/not done with regard to that nation? ??? Some expertise on Israel, that.
-
What has Obama done for/against Israel?
The one major problem you can mention is that Obama has not bombed Iran. But that hardly qualified as "cutting us off at the knees".
-
Huh. I guess the stories we're reading over here are wrong about Obama pushing Netanyahu for a freeze on settlements, orders for our troops in Iraq to shoot down Israeli planes headed to Iran, Obama trying to get friendly with anti-Israeli leaders in the Middle East, and polls showing that Israelis consider Obama to be anti-Israel.
Ya can't believe everything you read.
-
Did you forget you're talking to an expert? :police:
-
Am I? I'm only reiterating what I read. I can't be over in Israel, and I certainly can't be over in Israel in Netanyahu's office to get the real skinny.
All I know is what I read here in the US, and what I've read has indicated that Israel is pretty much without the US as an ally.
Besides, Obama gave Hamas a big chunk of money as well.
-
Huh. I guess the stories we're reading over here are wrong about Obama pushing Netanyahu for a freeze on settlements, orders for our troops in Iraq to shoot down Israeli planes headed to Iran, Obama trying to get friendly with anti-Israeli leaders in the Middle East, and polls showing that Israelis consider Obama to be anti-Israel.
And a freeze of settlements is the most excellent thing that happened to Israel this decade.
As for what "most Israelis think", this is the first time I've heard of this poll, as well as of those "orders to shoot down ISraeli jets."
As for Hamas... you do realize that Israel continues transferring money to Hamas, even under the Netanyahu cabinet, right?
-
Really, $250 million is a pretty small sum of money. Seriously, I have seen bigger lotto jackpots.
Not that I wouldn't love to be the recipient of $250M, but it isn't as much as everyone thinks.
-
Really, $250 million is a pretty small sum of money. Seriously, I have seen bigger lotto jackpots.
Not that I wouldn't love to be the recipient of $250M, but it isn't as much as everyone thinks.
As compared to what?
To the American government budget? Sure.
In Israel, though, $250 million is a giant pile of cash.
-
$250 mil is not going to help Israel one little bit in the grand scheme of things. All it does is buy Obama the right to say he's doing something for Israel, without actually having to do anything at all for Israel.
-
$250 mil is not going to help Israel one little bit in the grand scheme of things. All it does is buy Obama the right to say he's doing something for Israel, without actually having to do anything at all for Israel.
Well, technically, the aid system is harmful to Israel in the grand scheme of things, but I don't think Obama understands that.
-
The Fort Benning terrorist and the underwear bomber have already shown us that Obama can't be trusted to protect this country. This year will only be worse.
Agreed. I am concerned about the total political response we got right after that underwear bomber hit the news. That one official got up there trying to say everything worked when it was obvious to all 300 million Americans that it didn't. IMO, what was said shows a high level of stupidity and lack of foresight that doesn't give me confidence that we will prevent future attacks.
-
Agreed. I am concerned about the total political response we got right after that underwear bomber hit the news. That one official got up there trying to say everything worked when it was obvious to all 300 million Americans that it didn't. IMO, what was said shows a high level of stupidity and lack of foresight that doesn't give me confidence that we will prevent future attacks.
Re: The Martyr in PETN Panties, I seem to recall (not positive) that he didn't actually touch down on US soil until he soiled broiled his drawers with the bomb. Aside from somebody putting him on the no-fly list, we don't have much say as to how furrin airports do their business, right? Laying blame for that on BO seems a bit of a stretch.
-
Re: The Martyr in PETN Panties, I seem to recall (not positive) that he didn't actually touch down on US soil until he soiled broiled his drawers with the bomb. Aside from somebody putting him on the no-fly list, we don't have much say as to how furrin airports do their business, right? Laying blame for that on BO seems a bit of a stretch.
He was turned in by his father and he had a multiple entry visa to the US.
The airline security failed in Amsterdam, yes. Airline security is the last line of defense against these terrorist threats.
The largest problem is NOT our lackluster security protocols (or, in this case, Netherland security.)
The largest problem is a failure of intelligence, communication and cooperation between organizations.
-
Re: The Martyr in PETN Panties, I seem to recall (not positive) that he didn't actually touch down on US soil until he soiled broiled his drawers with the bomb. Aside from somebody putting him on the no-fly list, we don't have much say as to how furrin airports do their business, right? Laying blame for that on BO seems a bit of a stretch.
I wasn't blaming them for what happened so much as blaming them for the nutty remarks of the Obama appointee.
-
Fort Benning terrorist
Was there something that happened at Fort Benning, as well as Fort Hood ???
-
Was there something that happened at Fort Benning, as well as Fort Hood ???
I heard somebody failed to register their weapon!!! :O
-
Sheesh. I think I should just delete my entire post. ;)
-
orders for our troops in Iraq to shoot down Israeli planes headed to Iran
I don't believe I've heard that one.
-
I don't believe I've heard that one.
It probably isn't true, but it would be the smart policy for American interests. An attack on Iran would instantaneously un-do every bit of gain that's been had in Iraq over the past two years.
Obama's policy is identical to Bush's policy on these matters. I'm predicting that this policy will make him a one-termer, once the scope of the disaster that is Afghanistan begins to feature more in the press.
-
I wasn't blaming them for what happened so much as blaming them for the nutty remarks of the Obama appointee.
Ah. In that case, blame away.
-
I'm predicting that this policy will make him Bush a one-termer, once the scope of the disaster that is Iraq and Afghanistan begins to feature more in the press.
That just seemed funny since it's the same thing people used to say about Bush and Iraq. I seem to remember the term "quagmire" being mentioned a few million times...
-
That just seemed funny since it's the same thing people used to say about Bush and Iraq. I seem to remember the term "quagmire" being mentioned a few million times...
Yeah, except Iraq was slightly over 1 year old at the time of Bush's re-election. Afghanistan has been going on for a little over 8 years now. And there isn't Iran to help its puppets manage security and stability in Afghanistan like there is in Iraq.
Iraq is peaceful now, but is run by people who are mostly Iranian agents. Not sure how that turned out to be a long-term win, although it's certainly better than what's happening in Afghanistan where there is no chance of the same.
-
I don't believe I've heard that one.
It was a Carter appointee, Zbigniew "I'd like to buy a vowel" Brzezinski.
He insinuated that we ought to do so if Izzy strike planes cut through air space controlled by the USA.
He has always been on the lookout to toss Israel under the bus, just like Jimmah. He sure loves him some Muslim thugs.
It probably isn't true, but it would be the smart policy for American interests. An attack on Iran would instantaneously un-do every bit of gain that's been had in Iraq over the past two years.
Not sure about that. Iran & Iraq haven't been overly fond of each other for a good, long time.
Besides, maybe hte USA needs an education in the proper application of, "Bomb them to rubble and then leave" power projection.
Obama's policy is identical to Bush's policy on these matters. I'm predicting that this policy will make him a one-termer, once the scope of the disaster that is Afghanistan begins to feature more in the press.
Afghanistan was a disaster before we went there, it is a disaster now, and it will be a disaster after we leave. "Disaster" is the normal state in Afghanistan, a country that has never built its own paved highway outside of Kabul.
I am surprised few back home noticed. I am surprised we are still there.
I am rather in favor of killing militant Muslim barbarians, but we don't need a large ground component to do that in the disaster-state (as opposed to "nation-state) of Afghanistan.
IMO, after we overthrew AQ & the Taliban, we should have blown the crap out of some more stuff, just to show we are serious, and then gotten outta there. Playing third fourth nth-world social workers in a near stone-age "civilization" is not my idea of a proper policy objective.
Who knows if Afghanistan will be a big issue for BHO's election? Unless it turns sour, he'll coast along. The economy, cap & tax, and the health care abortion are all more likely to be a mill stone about his neck.
-
jfruser,
Yeah, it's true that Iran and Iraq were great enemies - when the religious minority headed by Saddam was in power, that is. Now Iraq's government is run by people who used to live in Iran, were entirely trained and patronised by Iran, and who take every opportunity to praise the benevolence of Iran at the moment. Check out a bio on Nuri al Maliki sometime - especially, take a look at what he was doing before Saddam fell.
I'm with you on Afghanistan. It should have been focused on catching or killing Bin Laden, destroying his hosts, and then leaving. What's happening now is that it gets more deadly every month, with absolutely no realistic hope of a strategic win in the future.
Obama is in a bind on Afghanistan - if he leaves, the Taliban will certainly retake the country in a matter of months and celebrate victory. If he stays, the Taliban keep killing people and gaining strength in every place where the allied forces are not present in force. They may even become strong enough to over-run significant outposts, which, if it happens, is the end of Obama's hopes.
My bet is that Obama is going to have to explain in the next couple of years why yet another big escalation in the war is necessary, and the case simply will not be convincing. It's a lose-lose situation.
-
The economy, cap & tax, and the health care abortion are all more likely to be a mill stone about his neck.
I don't agree. Looters outnumber producers in the US these days. The majority wants the kind of crap BHO is shoveling. And it's a cycle. The more leftist ideas he implements, the more dependent wards of the state he creates. And that means ever more voting for his kid of policies. The scale has tipped in the Looters favor, and I don't see it coming back without something BIG happening. And I don't mean big as in "the recession is pretty big" or "the Obamacare plan is a big deal to people". I mean "cars on fire in the streets" big. But that's just my opinion.
-
I just had a thought. Since it's past midnight, it's probably idiotic... but how many of the troublemakers in Afghanistan are based in Pakistan? From my very limited understanding of the issue, US ground troops aren't supposed to go into Pakistan - the Predator drones do, but troops don't. Bin Laden is supposed to be in northern Pakistan (or so Geraldo says). How much of the Afghanistan trouble is due to half-measures in Pakistan?
-
Iraq is peaceful now, but is run by people who are mostly Iranian agents.
That's some pretty hefty accusation to make.
-
That's some pretty hefty accusation to make.
I think it would be more weighty to accuse them of being independent, seeing that they are members of a religious party with long standing ties to Iran's clerics, and that they were mostly trained and supported over the past decades by....Iran. The Islamic Dawa, which Al Maliki heads, is openly pro-revolutionary-Iran.
I'm not sure why this is considered an "accusation", or even controversial. Al Maliki himself takes every opportunity to praise Iran and point out that his government will not allow its interests to be harmed.
-
I don't agree. Looters outnumber producers in the US these days. The majority wants the kind of crap BHO is shoveling. And it's a cycle. The more leftist ideas he implements, the more dependent wards of the state he creates. And that means ever more voting for his kid of policies.
Seen a poll lately?
Edit: By that, I'm meaning things aren't as dire as you suggest. There may be a cycle. It is not sustainable and, at least according to polls, people realize that. The majority does NOT want this crap.
-
What Obama has in common with Bush is that both prefer to set the living room on fire to oust the elephant.
-
I think we like to tell ourselves it will never get to that point, and we'll pull ourselves out of the fire before it's too late because that kind of thought is comforting. But even Rome fell. And the true reason for its collapse, was from within, and much in the same way we are.
-
I think we like to tell ourselves it will never get to that point, and we'll pull ourselves out of the fire before it's too late because that kind of thought is comforting. But even Rome fell. And the true reason for its collapse, was from within, and much in the same way we are.
I have no doubt we can foster our own demise. I have doubt that we are to that point.
The current state is not only unsustainable, but the liberals are breeding themselves out of importance (that is, not breeding).
That is why they want to indoctrinate the youth: they don't breed so they want to steal other's children.
The passing of the baby boomers may be the beginning of the end for the current problems. We shall see if our country can survive that long. I certainly hope so.
-
I'm with you on Afghanistan. It should have been focused on catching or killing Bin Laden, destroying his hosts, and then leaving. What's happening now is that it gets more deadly every month, with absolutely no realistic hope of a strategic win in the future.
Y'all were saying the same thing about Iraq, too, not that long ago.
It is possible to win these things. But wanting to win is a necessary prerequisite.
-
Iraq is peaceful now, but is run by people who are mostly Iranian agents.
That's some pretty hefty accusation to make.
I'm not sure why this is considered an "accusation", or even controversial.
shootinstudent has been saying this for a long time now. A lot. I'm surprised that forum regulars would respond as if it were something new.
As for why it's controversial, well, it's not a viewpoint one hears very much and it makes the whole Iraq War sound very pointless. I'm surprised you, shootinstudent, would not just acknowledge that such a thing is controversial.
-
fistful, certainly the implications are controversial, but the facts themselves are not seriously in dispute.
Iraq's government is headed by the Islamic Dawa (a longtime Iranian sponsored, Khomeini supporting organisation) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (renamed, but its pre-media name is not accidentally similar to its neighbor's "revolutionary" organisations...).
Al Maliki himself worked for the Iranian government for the long period before his return to Iraq. The militias loyal to the Iraqi government are Iranian-trained.
When the one Shia organisation that is not close to Iran challenged Al Maliki's authority, it was a delegation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who met with its leader on behalf of Al Maliki to stop the fighting. That's what ended the battle with Muqtada al Sadr - Al Maliki was rescued by his co-workers and the trainers of his militia in the the IRGC.
My point was that it would take a number of controversial and tough to believe arguments to make the case that Iraq is not run by Iranian agents.
-
SS:
For the sake of argument, let us assume what you wrote is true and think on the implications & related issues.
Iran, Proxies, Sectarian & Racial Strife
That would make the top Iraqis in that party roughly equivalent to Hamas & Hezbollah. IOW, Iran's agents (like you wrote).
Thing is, I think that the relationship Iran has with its proxies in the Muslim world is not as sanguine or brotherly as you imply.
For the Iranian part, Iraqi *expletive deleted*it Arabs are just that: stinky Arabs clearly inferior to the flower of Islam, the Aryans. Sunni Arab Iranian proxies (Hamas) are not even *expletive deleted*it, so they are twice-damned underlings.
For the Iraqi *expletive deleted*it Arab part, I see a whole new dynamic if/when they can consolidate & hold power of their own, apart from Iran's patronage.
For Maliki & related critters to be a success on America's terms does not require them to be angels, it merely requires them to be willing to grasp and wield power in a relatively independent fashion. Backstabbing former patrons is not exactly unheard of in the ME.
Neither Hamas & Hez have not been able to achieve power without the support of Iran, so I fully expect them to toe the line while on the Iranian tit. Maliki & Co will be left with a much better-trained military & security establishment than found in Iran. They will not need to be subservient to Iranian patrons.
I guess I could sum up my take (sect & race-wise) as this:
1. Iran's proxies align with Iran because of Iran's support.
2. The natural religious (*expletive deleted*it vs Sunni) and racial (Aryan vs Arab) animosities are controlled only for so long as the proxy is dependent on Iran.
3. The natural state (religious & ethnic strife) will re-assert itself once proxies are no longer dependents.
Iran's Not-So-Free Hand
Then there is the current state of play in Iran. Iran can still support proxies with cash & material, but I think its ability to project conventional power regionally is at an all-time ebb.
Oh, there are sizable military units in Iran, but from what I have read, I don't think the mullahs are about to make them flush with arms & supplies and be used as a threat against old dependents who get uppity.
There does seem to be a significant risk that instead of deploying on the Iran/Iraq border, they might deploy in Tehran. It also seems like not even all the Revolutionary Guard units are solid and that the burden of dealing with protesters has fallen on a small subset of the RGs and the Basij irregulars. Neither of which would be much use against an armored brigade used Ataturk-style against the mullahs.
Also, ever RG member in use vs internal threats is a RG member that can't be sent to Iraq to keep Iran's former vassals in line.
I think the mullah's mad race for nukes is partly a quest to replace ebbing conventional power projection with nuke power projection. The mullahs need far fewer dependable bodies to maintain a nuke force than a conventional force.
-
Y'all were saying the same thing about Iraq, too, not that long ago.
It is possible to win these things. But wanting to win is a necessary prerequisite.
HTG:
There isn't near as much quality human capital to work with in Astan. It is a country of cartographic convenience, stuffing variegated obnoxious ethnic groups who detest each other on to a spot on the map.
I wasn't kidding when I wrote that the native Afghans have not paved a mile of highway outside of Kabul.
It is the sort of country that makes Haiti look prosperous by comparison. Hell, Haiti is prosperous by comparison with GDP/capita of $1300 vs Astans $800. (Iraq: $3200)
Literacy
Iraq 74%
Haiti 53%
Astan 28.1%
Haiti also (relative to Astan):
* Is more ethnically homogeneous
* Speaks the same language
Really, would you make the same argument about Haiti, that you are about Iraq? That the only thing lacking in Haiti is American Will and a "Haiti Surge" so we can unify the country, give it rational government, and put it on the path to modernity?
If not, I wonder where you get the idea that if only we polished the Astan turd hard enough and used enough Brasso, we'd end up with a gleaming token of our success, rather than just a turd with Brasso slopped over it.
Another way to think about it:
Iraq is a rough & rowdy 18YO male. There's some potential, but how do you know unitl you kick his ass and smack his head on straight? Might turn out to be a solid citizen after that. We see plenty of that type go enter the service as callow youth to emerge men.
Haiti is a "developmentally delayed" 12 year old. He's not so bright and if he graduates high school, it will be something worth celebrating. Never will amount to much and would need a waiver to get into the service because his ASVAB score is so low.
Astan is the 8YO who rides the short bus to school and wears hockey equipment...but does not play any sports. He still has to wear diapers and the only one who can communicate with him at school is an uncommonly patient special ed teacher who triumphed and managed to teach him to hold a pencil this year.
Now, I think it worthwhile to kill our enemies in Astan and to make it painful to those who support our enemies.
Thing is, there are plenty of other cesspools that deserve some of our attention: Yemen, Somalia to name just two. They are just as broken and doing what Astan did back before 9-11. Both could use some B-2 therapy and a short visit by our infantry to drain the swamp a bit.
-
We are still in Afghanistan so we won't have to be where we might actually begin to turn things around, albeit at serious cost. The War is coming from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran; this is where the major threats are localized. Afghanistan is a way of seeming to use military force while really pursuing otiose police actions; it's also a good way of grinding down our military and further turning them from warriors into social workers. Obama needs some theater of action to show he has cojones, even if it's completely inappropriate strategically. We can fight around the fringes for decades or we can go to the real sources and use the trillion-dollar military we are so loath to employ, even for our own national survival. Personally, I do not see this Commander-in-Chief ever sending a tough message to the Muslim world about the consequences of delinquent behavior.
-
HTG:
<snip>
I see no reason to conclude we can't achieve a positive outcome in Afghanistan. Obviously the final result in A-stan would look different compared to what's in Iraq or Haiti or anywhere else. Fact remains, Afghanistan is no more a lost cause than any other military effort we've ever undertaken. We've achieved far more impressive feats in our nation's history, and there's no reason we can't do it again here. If we want to.
My point was that we can't achieve anything if we don't want to. And right now we don't want to. (And by 'we' I mean our current Commander in Chief.)
-
I see no reason to conclude we can't achieve a positive outcome in Afghanistan. Obviously the final result in A-stan would look different compared to what's in Iraq or Haiti or anywhere else. Fact remains, Afghanistan is no more a lost cause than any other military effort we've ever undertaken. We've achieved far more impressive feats in our nation's history, and there's no reason we can't do it again here. If we want to.
My point was that we can't achieve anything if we don't want to. And right now we don't want to. (And by 'we' I mean our current Commander in Chief.)
What's the realistic "win scenario" even look like in Afghanistan?
-
You have to ask, why, exactly?
???
-
You have to ask, why, exactly?
???
To illustrate that it doesn't exist, even in concept.
-
Again, something that was said about Iraq for years.
-
Again, something that was said about Iraq for years.
By the same poster, I believe.
-
To illustrate that it doesn't exist, even in concept.
You're the only person I know who habitually tries to turn things you don't agree with into things that don't exist.
-
You're the only person I know who habitually tries to turn things you don't agree with into things that don't exist.
Zing.
-
You're the only person I know who habitually tries to turn things you don't agree with into things that don't exist.
That's just a standard leftist way of looking at things. "If reality doesn't match my feelings, reality must be wrong"
-
You have to ask, why, exactly?
While I don't agree with SS that a "win scenario" doesn't exist, we have to keep in mind that any win scenario will have to have lower expectations than Iraq.
What does a "win scenario" look like to you? Does it matter if that scenario exists for a day/week/hour or does the "win" have to be at all persistent?
What does a Afghan "win scenario" look like to me?
1. Drive Taliban & AQ from power.
2. Kill lots of Tali & AQ.
3. Impress upon any bystanders that we will destroy, with ruthlessness & vigor, those we deem a threat...and we are indifferent to the damage caused to those between us & the threat.
4. Make it clear to the local schmoes who wind up with authority after the Taliban & AQ get the boot that if he/they don't keep their barbarous affairs from seeping outside their borders, their lives are forfeit.
5. Git while the getting's good. Do not let familiarity breed contempt.
6. No great expectations as to persistence. The swamp will have to be drained every once in a while and new generations will have to be taught not to screw with America.
We've been dick-dancing around long enough that any pull out will look like we left at their behest, not ours. Best we can do now is to kill the hell outta the current batch of savages with a surge in troops, declare victory, and go home.
Unfortunately, "win scenario" for many includes setting up a stable and not too hideous central gov't and some sort of start on building infrastructure. That is too bad, since any central gov't left to locals will degenerate and collapse in 2 years, tops, and the bricks we use to build the functional edifices of civilization will be stripped to build brick stoves and isolated little enclaves to ignorance.
Two years after we leave Astan, it will be a mess, again. Unless we are willing to smack their militants around and nation-build for the better part of a century*, it doesn't matter if we stay 6 months or 10 years, no matter, as the result is not proportional to the effort input.
The heart of the matter is the Afghans and their lack of human capital, not American resolve.
* Essentially colonize the place, civilize the locals, and build the infrastructure.
-
Actual (as opposed to Daily Kos hyperventilating) empire building is the only way to win in places like A-stan. We, as a nation, do not have the will to do what is needed.
-
jfruser, be careful, or you'll be branded a leftist forever like me =D
The "win" you are describing is already a lose, because that could have been done in one month. The Taliban fell, and Al Qaeda was decimated, within a month using a few hundred troops.
Now we're eight years and billions of dollars deep. That outcome is a loss, and should be considered a lesson learned for the future.
It's easy to dismiss criticisms of the Afghan war with "eh, they said that about Iraq" (I notice that no one is disputing the facts about its ties to Iran) and "if we want to we can win" (no facts to discuss with that one). But any analysis of the facts will lead closer to jfruser's analysis that anything else.
On the point about Iran-Iraq you raised, it's important to focus on a difference between Hizbullah/Hamas and the Iraqi government: Hizbullah and Hamas are both independent groups who received some training from the Iranians, but who have operated primarily in their home countries, and who have entirely independent religious and ideological networks.
This is not true for Islamic Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - both operated in Iran and under the network of the Iranian religious state for decades, and still continue to do so. Ali Al Sistani himself is an Iranian passport holder. These groups are literally part of the Iranian state, unlike the Lebanese or Palestinian factions.
It's worth noting, before you rely on the racial difference, that Iran is a multi-racial state as well with substantial populations of religious minorities. The clerics have managed that problem far, far better than the coalition government has, and there's no reason why they wouldn't be able to do the same in Iraq.
-
Afghanistan
I think your end state is 50%-75% of my solution. Either way, the vast sum of lives, material, and cash expended since has been a waste, as they will not buy us much. On the upside, Astan has not been a useful training base for AQ & other jihadis, what with all the MAerican & NATO forces there.
In one way, BHO was correct: we had to go into Astan and smash the place up(1). He's wrong in that Astan needed the level of attention Iraq did.
Hez & Ham
Oh, yeah, they have their own religio-political apparatus. But, both still rely heavily on Iranian support to the point that they would not exist without it.
Really, what sort of funds can even the hardest heart extract from Gaza? They got nothing to tax. Without Iranian support, they'd never have come to prominence and would quickly succumb to Arafat's pestilential heirs(2).
Hez has it a little better, what with Lebanon only have been gang-raped by decades of warfare and not yet completely become an "Aid Economy" like Gaza. So, there is something to extort from the Lebanese and the Syrians might come up with support on their own part, rather than being Iran's butt-boy.
Iran & Minorities
I think you are too generous when describing Iran's ethnic problems (there are several). A few years back I had to study Iran & the Caucasus for work and it seems every ethnic group has its own militant wing and designs on a "Greater Whatever."
The Aryans only make up half the population and the Azeris make up 25%...with a real, no-bull Azeri-stan (Azerbaijan) on Iran's border, who have been known to support ther co-ethnics. The only thing the mullahs have in their favor is that the Azeris and the other ethnics are splintered. And now the ethnics are importing Arab splodey-dope tactics.
If the ethnic groups timed their unrest correctly to align with the currently demonstrating anti-mullah folks, things would get frisky right quick.
Iraq Shiites
Iran was the natural sanctuary for Shiites on S--t List.
I guess my view of human nature and especially ME power politics is rather dark. I fully expect the Malikis to quickly sour on being Iran's toadies when they real authority to rival Iran's. At that point, it won;t be healthy to be an agent of Iran.
(1) I am reminded of a joke my math teach told:
Last night a tornado blew through Arkansas and did $17milion in improvements.
(2) Though, one must admit that some of the PA-controlled ares look startlingly normal from reports by reliable folk, what with no bombings by either palis or Izzies
-
Shootinstudent, I'll give you points for presentation. You make very convincing arguments, in part because you appear to have a command of the issue, so much so that it would require doing research to rebut your points.
I just grabbed one of your points at random from your last post to see how well it holds up. It was the point about Ali Sistani having an Iranian passport, your implication being that he is part of the Iranian state.
It's true that Ali Sistani has an Iranian passport. He is an Iranian citizen, and made it a point to visit Iran every year, right up until 1979 when Khomeini seized power. That's the last time he was in Iran.
He was invited to Iran last March by the Iranian government, but refused. Sistani is regarded as the leading religious Shilite cleric. Iran's Khomeinist version of Shiism is regarded as political rather than religious. He didn't accept the invitation to visit Iran because it would lend legitimacy to the Iranian regime. It was for this reason, too, as well as others, that Sistani also refused to meet with Ahmadinejad when the Iranian president visited Iraq in 2008.
That doesn't sound like Sistani is part of the "Iranian state," does it?
Perhaps other APS'er's could look into some of Shootinstudent's facts.
-
ML:
That is hilarious.
Reminds me of a buddy of mine who leaves choice bits out of reports and stories*.
Example:
"The last thing I saw before I fell unconscious was Will wrapped up in a bed sheet, walking toward the strip club."
Now, what he managed to leave out was that they both were in a two QS bed hotel room in Vegas on a cheap trip. Will had something happen to his clothes and had washed but not completely dried them, necessitating the ol' bed sheet trick so as to not be nekkid when he got up right before bed to hit the lavatory & brush his teeth...and if one lined them up, the nearest strip club is in line with the bath room when moving from Will's bed.
I guess we'll have to treat SS's writings like the New York Times and require another source verify its contents before believing it.
* Deliberately, for comedic effect, and with plenty of broadcasting that he is doing such
-
Shootinstudent, I'll give you points for presentation. You make very convincing arguments, in part because you appear to have a command of the issue, so much so that it would require doing research to rebut your points.
I just grabbed one of your points at random from your last post to see how well it holds up. It was the point about Ali Sistani having an Iranian passport, your implication being that he is part of the Iranian state.
It's true that Ali Sistani has an Iranian passport. He is an Iranian citizen, and made it a point to visit Iran every year, right up until 1979 when Khomeini seized power. That's the last time he was in Iran.
He was invited to Iran last March by the Iranian government, but refused. Sistani is regarded as the leading religious Shilite cleric. Iran's Khomeinist version of Shiism is regarded as political rather than religious. He didn't accept the invitation to visit Iran because it would lend legitimacy to the Iranian regime. It was for this reason, too, as well as others, that Sistani also refused to meet with Ahmadinejad when the Iranian president visited Iraq in 2008.
That doesn't sound like Sistani is part of the "Iranian state," does it?
Perhaps other APS'er's could look into some of Shootinstudent's facts.
SOP for him. Rather than debate the facts and conclusions for a given discussion, he says something flat out untrue or utterly ridiculous in order to obfuscate discussions that conflict with his biases. By the time you're done untangling his nonsense the discussion has lost all purpose and meaning.
(Watch out, he'll argue the point on Sistani with you. By the time everything gets sorted out it won't matter any more. He'll have made his point, derailed any further discussion, and be long gone.)
-
Many comments about style, very few facts to dispute those already posted.
Monkeyleg, the story that Sistani's rejection of the Iranian invitation meant he rejected Iran was floated by the same guy who made up the story about Jews having arm-bands in Iran. Given Sistani's public support for Iran and his Iranian citizenship, you'd have to be really wanting to believe he opposes Iran in order to construe the events that way.
To sum up, no one's disputing that Islamic Dawa (Iranian sponsored) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (goes without saying) actually run Iraq. The holiest person in Iraqi shi'ism is Iranian, but maybe he opposes Iran because, after meeting with a senior Iranian official and welcoming Iran's renewed ties to Iraq, the man didn't travel directly to Tehran.
Yet, when I say "yeah, these facts indicate that Iraq has a pro-Iranian government", I'm making subtle distortions and leaving things out, etc etc. It's a bit hard to understand why, other than the fact that it's me highlighting these things, this position is taken to be such a stretch. I think reasonably the public and consistent pro-Iranian positions taken by Iraq's Iranian-sponsored political parties, and its Iranian senior cleric, are more than reasonable justification for what I'm saying.
Supporting the Iraq war does not mean you have to deny the obvious.
-
I guess we'll have to treat SS's writings like the New York Times and require another source verify its contents before believing it.
I would assume that's standard for anyone who presents an opposing or unpopular viewpoint. It's healthy and I welcome it.
-
Monkeyleg, the story that Sistani's rejection of the Iranian invitation meant he rejected Iran was floated by the same guy who made up the story about Jews having arm-bands in Iran.
Yeah, I guess all those rumor mills like the NY Post and Gulf News can't be trusted.
You may be telling the truth sometimes, but how are we to know?
-
Yeah, I guess all those rumor mills like the NY Post and Gulf News can't be trusted.
You may be telling the truth sometimes, but how are we to know?
Yeah, those news articles are written by the guy who made up the arm-band story - Taheri, ie, someone who badly wants Iran to be in trouble with Iraq and who has fabricated stories about Iran in the past. Of course the event happened, it's just that there's no real reason to adopt his conclusions about what it means for Iran/Sistani relations.
Like I said, I welcome the scrutiny jfruser talks about. See for yourself, for example, who Islamic Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are, and how influential they are in the Iraqi government.
Having an opinion you don't agree with and that is shared by leftists doesn't make for a manufactured story.
-
HTG, you must be one of those "authentic psychics" I see on TV. ;)
-
You build empires by neutralizing the other guy's empire, not permitting him to co-exist with "mutual interests." That will be obvious enough in due course, after the pain threshold is escalated in the homeland. We are still in dreamland.