Thursday, February 15, 2007


Iran, Congress, Iraq

A bit of catharsis for me!

Iran.--These Muslims must be held accountable for aiding and supplying the insurgents in Iraq. By that I mean, we should retaliate appropriately with military precision. If it starts a real shooting war, so be it. It is coming anyway, so why not pick the time ourselves? Beat up on some suspected nuclear sites with Tomahawks. Perhaps we will, soon now.

Congress.-- It never occurred to me that so many Republicans would defect to the Dimdems over Iraq strategy. Eleven Ex-RepDimdems. They will be remembered. What makes Congressmen think they know more about this war than those on the ground? A few hours in Iraq does not an expert make. None of these junketeers have assessed the situation in a valid manner, I wager. It is all power playing. Murtharizing.

Iraq.-- Seems as if the rules of engagement have been changed for the good. If the troops can arrest and hold these terrorists forever, and if they can sanitize and hold onto blocks and blocks of Baghdad, and if they can shoot to kill anyone with an AK-47 and no uniform, and if they can do a much better job of closing the borders, and if we back them up with hard political, economic, social, and military steps against Syria and Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia, we could well pull this one off. More troops means more flexibility for the Commander to do what is needed.
Dimdems, of course, are playing to 2008, and the soft sentiments of the public.

This may backfire over the Summer, as people assess the serious damage the Dimdems have done to our heroic efforts in Iraq, the sacrifices in deaths and casualties we have endured, and the vast sums of money we have spent in the process. Is this to be all for nothing? Ask a Dimdem, and you will get a hearty YES! Redeploy! To Okinawa?


Iraq - Personally, I don't expect to see a lasting improvement whilst there is a lack of political willpower in dealing with terrorist captives. Real (i.e. genuinely robust) interrogations are badly needed. If there is poor military intelligence coming in, our forces will not be able to distinguish ordinary Iraqis from the enemy.

Iran - This is the real battleground in the WoT; Iraq having always been a mere side-show. I worry that when Bush finally gives the go-ahead, he'll order just precise, limited bombing of selected vital installations. Personally, I would like the US to do to Iran what the allies did to the Ruhr valley in Germany in WWII- flatten it with large scale conventional bombing, so destroying the entire Iranian industrial base for the forseeable future, and giving a clear message to any other Arab country which might be toying with the idea of becoming a nuclear power. Again, lack of political willpower and lack of full realization of the horrific dangers facing the West will prevent such action being taken...Oh well.

ps- I like your blog!
Iraq.--For some time I have thought that the old-hand, hard-bitten sargeants would take a captive behind the shed and get all they could out of him. The officers would be told to look the other way, and they would. Later, one more body appearing in a ditch would not be very remarkable.

Iran.--Agreed. However, one cannot simply bomb a few nuclear targets, because Iran has something of an air defense, and it just wouldn't do to have one of our multibillion dollar B-2s shot down. So, we would have to reduce their air defense, their communications, and their command centers, before going after the nuke sites. Since a lot of their defense is located around industrial and population centers, the infrastructure damage would be extensive without actually trying to bomb them back into the 7th century.

One hopes for a miracle in the near future, such as a revolution in Iran, and the deposing of the Mullahs, but this is wishful thinking. Turning Iran into silicone in about a month of bombing is one kind of solution I believe to be verboten as things stand now.

Thanks for the complement.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?