Iraq update prediction

[tower912]

I predict the report will say some variation of the following:   Some unsteady progress in some areas, still not enough Iraqi responsibility, need to keep the surge going until spring, when we are going to have to start drawing down troops anyway.    Cover will be given for the White House to claim progress but plan for the inevitable withdrawal of some of our troops, cover will be given to wavering R's, spring withdrawal will mollify enough of the D's to allow the current policy to continue unchanged.    Groundwork will be layed for a set long-term presense of somewhere around 80K troops.    Bush ignores it all and attacks Iran. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

What do you think we should do with Iran?  What does any Democrat leader think....I've head not one comment from any candidate on what we should do with Iran.

[Murffieus]

If Iran gets Nukes things get very complicated and difficult.

Tower is correct-----Petreus won't be coming back to report on himself as a failure------and he's not a failure----he's been very successful on the ground in just 2 1/2 short months.

Can't have political movement toward conciliation in Iraq until there is religious conciliation-----and that's coming-----see my post on "very interesting article"!

[tower912]

'What should we do about Iran?', he posits, again not providing any answers of his own.   What's wrong, Fox news and media busters haven't told you what to think yet?    Despite your insinuations that it is only the D's who have yet to present a coherent plan on Iran, neither has this administration, nor has any of the R canditates.  Come to think about it, the same can still be said for Iraq.
Iran is a huge problem.   A strong argument can be made that they were a larger threat to us even before we invaded Iraq.    Remember, the reason we gave Saddam the WMD's (that he later secretly destroyed) in the first damn place is  because he was going to war with Iran.   We NEEDED him to be a counterbalance to the ayatollahs, so we gave him lots of cool toys and intelligence, just like we gave Osama lots of cool toys, intel, and training.   Iran has a better trained, better equipped, larger army than Iraq did.   And, like Iraq, they have a certifiable nutjob in charge.
    The U.S. has a huge problem in that we do not have the troops to mount any kind of ground offensive and we have no credibility in the world to lead any kind of coalition that would provide sufficent manpower to lead a ground offensive.   So, can an air assault and covert activities on the ground cause enough disruption to topple the current regime?  I doubt it.   And, a failed attempt to do so will just give our enemies even more encouragement.   To even suggest nukes is a sad commentary.
   So, right now, our best option, and I do not believe it is a very good option, is to count on the UN and Europe to use their diplomatic skills to keep Iran in line.   A weak option, but we have few others.

[Murffieus]

Tower----the only option we have is to prevent Iran from getting nukes----whatever it takes to prevent that!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pretty funny Tower.  No one tells me how to think.

What should we do, I've already stated here what I think we should do.

    Continue to utilize the UN to force HEAVY sanctions on Iran not to pursue.  So far the UN has been the typical anemic body that they are, but I would continue down this path as long as possible.


If it comes to the point (that point is coming soon) that the UN doesn't do what is necessary, you don't have many options

A)  US takes out their nuclear facilities as best as possible (with all of their underground tunneling that may be impossible)

B)  Have the Israelis take it out


I don't know what the US ground troops situation has anything to do with Iran.  We're not going in there to remove their leaders or take over the country....we'll do the Bill Clinton method of just dropping bombs for several years on Kosovo.   



I don't see any realistic option that allows them to have a nuclear weapon, it will only lead to a regional nuclear war some day in my opinion.  This is where we differ.  You believe the UN can pull it off...I see no reason why they can.  I'm willing to give them the chance, as Bush has for the last several years but as the clock keeps ticking you cannot allow them to have the weapon.

[tower912]

Chico, you usually do a good job of thinking for yourself.  I was sleep deprived and sick as a dog and ergo cranky as hell when I wrote that.  I apologize.   We actually aren't that far apart on this one.   We agree that UN and Europe pressure is not a strong position.   You were thinking about simply eliminating the nuke program and I was thinking regime change.    I expect that targeted bombing is one of the leading options.   My concern with that is that from what I have read, the Iranians have been pretty cagey with their program, as it is very diffused, mixed in with civilian targets and/or buried deep underground.   We can only hope the Israelis have far better intel than we do.   

[Murffieus]

Ideally, we give the Israeli's the tools to do the job. Easier for Israel to justify to the world as they have been threatened with annihilation by the leader of Iran!

BTW---Israel gets excellent intel!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Interesting


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3442638,00.html