Joe Conason has outlined everything we can't do in Iran. We can't bomb the nuclear sites, not because it won't work, but because we'd look bad. We can't invade because it would be really, really hard. In fact, Conason predicts a withdrawal under fire.
I've been trying to find any indications that Conason has a record of accurate military predictions. I can't find any except that he's predicted, several times, that Afghanistan is crumbling into ruin. He has said when it will crumble into ruin since it sure hasn't yet.
Anyway, he does offer an alternative. We can talk to them. Which has worked so well in the last few years.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Salon: Useful Suggestions for Iran
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If that is considered a situational analysis of attacking Iran, this guy should seek a new line of work. Piss poor is being generous.
I love the fear filled lines about Irans 800,000 men at arms and how they are so much better than Saddam's Army. Funny though that Saddam had a military force of over 1,000,000 when the coalition stomped them to pieces in the first Gulf war. That same force had held an 8 year war with Iran and managed to hold their own. Maybe someone should really take a second and look at very recent history, and take a breath, and realize that US forces are even better now.
The missile threat is pathetic in the lack of research. Iran doesn't possess a missile system that can get much further than eastern europe, never mind the US.
As for the oil prices, no bloody kidding. I don't recall any predictions that will the fall of Saddam that prices were going to get better. And anyone contending that they would get better with military strikes against Iran should be considered morons.
Lastly, as for retreating from Iraq under fire, don't make me laugh. If the US chose to invade Iraq it would be no doubt messy, but only slightly more difficult in the original action than Iraq was. The Insurgency later would be far worse, but that makes an assumption that US forces stayed in the country.
Invasion shouldn't even be discussed at this time. The only discussion has been on targeted attacks of their facilities and contending dire losses of invasion is putting the horse before the cart. (Not to mention it would be a prediction we heard about Afghanistan and Iraq which proved to have forces that frighteningly simple to defeat.)
Yeah, it's too bad he was not the source of the "fifty thousand body bags" for Afghanistan, but it wasn't him. He's a dolt on military matters, but then again, so is most of the press. I really wish at least a few of them could get their knowledge of military matters from sources other than Hollywood.
Post a Comment