Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria

[troung]

This is an Israel news source in case any wonders...

Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...340750,00.html

They are a unified group of American intellectuals, who held key positions in Bush administration and were blamed for getting US into Iraq. Most of them are Jews, so they are obviously accused of risking America in favor of Israel. Israeli Meyrav Wurmser claims that if situation is bad, Israelis are also to blame Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON - It hasn't been a good year for neocons, that group of conservative American intellectuals pulling some strings of US policy, particularly during the George W. Bush administration.
The strongest indictment against them is the war in Iraq, a quagmire in which the US is currently stuck up to its neck. And as Bush's days in the White House grow numbered, they are leaving one by one.

Among the few remaining neocons is David Wurmser, an advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle Eastern affairs. Wurmser is a Middle East expert, just like his wife, Israeli Meyrav Wurmser, a researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute.
Meyrav Wurmser was also one of the co-founders of MEMRI, which tracks Arab leaders and translating their political statements from Arabic to English.

Despite the fact that many neocons are no longer part of the government, it turns out they're still one big happy family, who make sure to remain in touch.
Many are Jews, who share a love for Israel . Some of the accusations against the government regarding the war in Iraq is that it was undertaken primarily for Israel's sake and that the attack on Iraq was actually an Israeli objective.

In an interview with Ynet, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser refutes the accusations and criticism.
"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."

What are you trying to achieve?

"We believe in a strong and active American foreign policy. America is a good force in the world, a nation that believes in freedom. We believe in exporting American ideas of freedom and democracy, to promote greater stability."

Did you, in practice, bring about the war in Iraq?

"We expressed ideas, but the policy in Iraq was taken out of neocon hands very quickly. The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere.
"The objective was to change the face of the Middle East. But it was impossible to create a mini-democracy amidst a sea of dictatorships
looking to destroy this poor democracy, and thus, where do insurgents in Iraq come from? From Iran and Syria ."

Should they have been conquered?

"No. There was a need for massive political action, of threats and pressure on these governments, financial pressure, for example. The sanctions on Syria were nothing. There was a period of time when the Syrians were afraid that they were next. It would have been possible to use this momentum in a smarter way. There's no need to go in militarily."
Everyone feels beaten after last 5 years

At their prime, the neocons held the reigns of American decision making. In the Pentagon, there were Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, and Harold Rhode, a senior Pentagon advisor on Islam.
In the vice president's office were Louis Libby and John Hannah. Richard Perle headed the committee advising to the Pentagon. In the White House were Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams and Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who later became the US ambassador to the UN.
According to Wurmser's description, the group is comprised of academics, most of them lacking operational experience, who became part of the Bush administration but failed to get their ideas through bureaucracy.
"These are intellectuals who came with great ideas, in which I still believe, but did not find a way to promote their beliefs in the complexities of bureaucracy," she says.

Your people held senior positions in the Pentagon. Didn't Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith implement your theories?

"The final decisions were no in their hands. In the Pentagon, the decisions were in the hands of the military, and the political leadership had a lot of clashes with the military leadership."

Did the military leadership ask for more soldiers in Iraq?

"Rumsfeld prevented that. He was a failure. The State Department opposed the neocons' stances. Also John Bolton, who is also part of the family, and was no. 4 at the State Department under Colin Powell, was incapable of passing decisions.
"Powell curbed our ideas and they did not pass. There was a lot of frustration over the years in the administration because we didn't feel we were succeeding.
"Now Bolton left and there are others who are about to leave. This administration is in its twilight days. Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money. We all feel beaten after the past five years. We miss the peace and quiet and writing books.
"When you enter the administration you have to keep your mouth shut. Now many will resume their writing. Now, from the outside, they will be able to convey all the criticism they kept inside."

In the meantime you left the US inside Iraq?

"We did not bring the US into Iraq in such a way. Our biggest war which we lost was the idea that before entering Iraq we must train an exile Iraqi government and an Iraqi military force, and hand over the rule to them immediately after the occupation and leave Iraq. That was our idea and it was not accepted."

Your man was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later suspected of spying for Iran?

"That is true, but we didn't want him as a dictator but as a person in a government that will act democratically. We must help the current democratic government. The borders with Iran and Syria should have been blocked immediately when we entered Iraq. Now it's already a disaster."

Why didn't you attack Syria?

Many of Wurmser's friends believe the disaster is not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. They are also very frustrated over the way in which Israel embarked on the war against Hezbollah this summer, and on the way it returned from it. "Hezbollah defeated Israel in the war. This is the first war Israel lost," Dr. Wurmser declares.

Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war?

"Yes, there is no doubt. It's not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel."

What caused the anger?

"I know this will annoy many of your readers. But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hezbollah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hezbollah."

Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?

"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.
"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space. They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."
"It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.
"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended."
Wurmser says that what most frustrates her is hearing people close to decision makers in Israel asking her if the US would have let Israel attack Syria.
"No one would have stopped you. It was an American interest. They would have applauded you. Think why you received so much time and space to operate. Rice was in the region and Israel embarrassed her with Qana, and still Israel got more time. Why aren't they reading the map correctly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?"

[Stan187]

The questions is, if there are two enemies to hit (Syria and Iran), then if Israel would have hit Syria as its part of the deal, would the US have hit Iran? And I don't think so. While Syria and Iranian support is a pretty key factor in Iraq, she misses the opportunity to make a comment about the other BIGGIE in Iraq, which are the militias. And the militias are not entirely a result of Irano-Syrian influence.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

lol fat fking chance.

[Stan187]

lol fat fking chance.

Precisely.

[Swift Sword]

Let me get this straight: they thought that if Israel bombed Syria it would forward American interests?

Question: how would throwing Syria off balance and destabilizing that country help the United States in its efforts to stabilize neighboring Iraq?

It would appear that chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are the conditions under which radical Islam extends its sphere of influence so creating more of it in Syria, Iran or elsewhere would appear to be unhealthy to both U.S. and Israeli interests.

Find out what these cats be smoking on and get me some.

William

[Bluesman]

Let me get this straight: they thought that if Israel bombed Syria it would forward American interests?

Question: how would throwing Syria off balance and destabilizing that country help the United States in its efforts to stabilize neighboring Iraq?

It would appear that chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are the conditions under which radical Islam extends its sphere of influence so creating more of it in Syria, Iran or elsewhere would appear to be unhealthy to both U.S. and Israeli interests.

Find out what these cats be smoking on and get me some.

William

THERE. Right THERE.

This is what I''ve been talking about. Willam, you have a basic misunderstanding of what's going on, where our interests lie, AND the Syrians', AND the Israelis'.

Iran and Syria are what we call ENEMIES. Israel is an ALLY. Destabilizing an enemy regime, or two, or three DOES serve our interests, and Israel's.

You seem to imagine that the Iraq Surrender Group had a dam' good point: if only we can get Syria and Iran to see that their fostering of chaos in Iraq is a Bad Thing - not just for us, but for them, too - well, then they'll just change that decades-old, well-considered, heavily-supported plan, and just come on aboard the Ole American Bandwagon.

NO SIR. You don't get it, and I've pointed that out to all and sundry on this Board almost since you first posted that pap.

How would destabilizing Iran and Syria help stabilize Iraq? By forcing them onto the defensive, like we currently are. Instead of a Green Zone in Baghdad, let's have a couple in Damascus and Tehran. Right now, as we speak, the most deadly weapons in the terrorists' aresenal, the Explosively-Formed Projectile, is flowing in an uninterrupted stream across the Iranian border. And the operators of same are flowing in from the other side, the Syrian border.

They are ENEMIES, William, and you'd do well to study up on that word, and the strategic imperative of defeating them. They kill Americans, and if you gave two damns about that, instead of the defeat and retreat in the face of a victorious enemy that you've been urging, even somebody as blinkered as you are MAY urge that we fight back, and stop respecting a line on a map that our enemies don't give a dam' about.

Just try to get out of your Realist mindset for a moment (because, thank Gawd, the ISG's laughable product has utterly discredited it), and get your head around this concept: chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are our ALLIES, when used against our ENEMIES.

JAYZUS, this is so BASIC; how can you not SEE that?

[astralis]

bluesman,

Just try to get out of your Realist mindset for a moment (because, thank Gawd, the ISG's laughable product has utterly discredited it), and get your head around this concept: chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are our ALLIES, when used against our ENEMIES.

sorry, a bit off-topic, but the academic in me has a nitpick here.

the term realist has been used wrongly over and over in both the press and academia. realism does not discount the value of chaos, anarchy, instability, and fog of war- it ACCEPTS those as the very structure of the international system.

while the ISG's product does have tenets of realism, so too does your idea.

as for utterly discrediting realism, from your perspective, better hope not. the main alternative to realism is liberalism, which has for its core principles that while anarchy is present, it can be reduced or even negated- by international organizations.

[astralis]

for the topic on hand, my own personal belief is a medium between the ideas of bluesman and swift sword.

right now i believe that talking to either syria or iran is useless, UNLESS we are willing to offer them a grand bargain (the costs of which are probably too high for us). the cards they hold in their hand, while we still have all those american boys within striking distance, is too good.

however, completely de-stabilizing either/both syria and iran will not help matters, either, as AQ (although here, most likely a shi'a equivalent) and other terrorist groups feed off instability in recruiting and dominating the political vacuum. unless WE replace this political vacuum, then we leave the field open for others (as we've seen in iraq). is the american public eager for occupations in syria and iran? i leave it to the reader to decide.

the best method is probably that of threat coercion. right now, bear the pain; however, at the earliest possible time, withdraw enough soldiers to form a decent strategic reserve. i like what's going on now, with news of a second carrier going to the ME; that is a good example of raising the bar. racket up the level of tension- including our attempts at de-stabilizing them- and make it clear to them that our level of destabilization and pressure is equal to what they got going in iraq.

this type of pressure has worked before- see BOTH libya and syria in 2003, when they were scared absolutely crapless by the 21-day invasion.

[Stan187]

Let me get this straight: they thought that if Israel bombed Syria it would forward American interests?

Question: how would throwing Syria off balance and destabilizing that country help the United States in its efforts to stabilize neighboring Iraq?

It would appear that chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are the conditions under which radical Islam extends its sphere of influence so creating more of it in Syria, Iran or elsewhere would appear to be unhealthy to both U.S. and Israeli interests.

Find out what these cats be smoking on and get me some.

William

Sir, it is pretty simple. Its not just normal Syrians going off to bomb people in Iraq without any government say. The regime is encouraging it and allowing them to go through with it. Destabilize that regime, and they got other problems to worry about besides for encouraging its citizens to go fight in another country.

[Bluesman]

Correct.

[Swift Sword]

[QUOTE=Bluesman;315805]THERE. Right THERE.

This is what I''ve been talking about. Willam, you have a basic misunderstanding of what's going on, where our interests lie, AND the Syrians', AND the Israelis'.

Au contraire mon ferrer, understanding the situation is much more textured, nuanced and sophisticated then "bash 'em with a rock".

Here are some of the United States' interests with regards to the Middle East and Central Asia:

1. Counter terrrorism;
2. Counter proliferation;
3. Counter narcotics;
4. Energy security (for ourselves and to a greater extent our European and Asian allies);
5. Regional stability without which none of the above is going to happen in the first place.

There are others, naturally, but that is a pretty comprehensive short list for purposes of argument.

Iran and Syria are what we call ENEMIES. Israel is an ALLY. Destabilizing an enemy regime, or two, or three DOES serve our interests, and Israel's.

I have found that there are a myriad of things you can do to make an enemy serve your purposes besides just ***** about them and throw rocks at them.

Ok, so Syria gets clobbered tommorrow.

This would make you happy but then you would be railing about the terrorists and weapons smugglers taking advantage of the refugee flows, chaos and porous borders to threaten Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and what not.

This is how it happened in Mr. Bush's first two wars in the region, albeit with different borders; would it be rational to suppose it would happen differently in a third?

Introducing more instability to the region is clearly not going to further U.S. interests.

Israel is good people and I have no problem with them as an ally but their grand strategic consideration that "Israel's fortune depends on Leabanon's misfortune" is a direct impediment to our own grand strategic aims in the region.

This being the case, we should not do them too many favors, especially since taking the Syrians out of their hair would be shooting ourselves in the foot...unless we can get a suitable quid pro quo,of course, which is extremely unlikely where Lebanon is concerned.

You seem to imagine that the Iraq Surrender Group had a dam' good point: if only we can get Syria and Iran to see that their fostering of chaos in Iraq is a Bad Thing - not just for us, but for them, too - well, then they'll just change that decades-old, well-considered, heavily-supported plan, and just come on aboard the Ole American Bandwagon.

Frankly, I do not care if Iran and Syria are on the wagon or not as long as we have people in Washington capable of getting them to act in a manner that is pursuant to our interests (and if their crooked govenrments loose sway in the process, fine by me).

And of the two, Syria is pretty worthless but Iran is gem of incalcuable worth viz U.S. interests in the Middle East and CARs which is why we should only smash it as the policy of last resort.

And do not continue to blame the chaos in Iraq on Iran and Syria because the facts clearly show that it is a result of American interventionism. When you hold the door for your enemy, do not complain if he saunters through it.

Your peer group clearly has disdain for the ISG and its conclusions and your attempt to link mine to theirs for purposes of your audience is a very well known propaganda technique. However, it is a bit misleading given the fact the ISG followed me by a very significant chronological margin and I have never had any contact with that body.

I researched and came to my own conclusions years ago; I did not need somebody to spoon feed them to me from a can of ideology. However, watching the President get the medicine as a result of not doing his own homework has been amusing...outside of the "stay the course" butcher's bill.

NO SIR. You don't get it, and I've pointed that out to all and sundry on this Board almost since you first posted that pap

If you want to win, you have got to convince me, not them.

Show me some evidence and present it persuasively and I might jump.

Repeating the dangers of radical Pan Islam and trying to scare me with tales of decapitating, Islamic boogey men ad infinitum is not much of an argument.

Your mission in our ongoing debate is to prove to me that a belt of instability extending from the beaches of Lebanon to the border of China somehow forwards the intersets of the U.S. and its allies and fetters the interests of our enemies (e.g. "the terrorists", proliferators, etc.) as well as hampers the aspirations of our strategic competitors (e.g. the Chinese and the Russians).

How would destabilizing Iran and Syria help stabilize Iraq? By forcing them onto the defensive, like we currently are. Instead of a Green Zone in Baghdad, let's have a couple in Damascus and Tehran.

Why in the Hell would I be idiotic enough to grant my enemy the economy of the defensive to my own detriment?!?

Let him blunt his sword on my superior shield and machinations while I dispatch him at the time and place of my convenience.

Figure out what to do with one Green Zone before you demand another.

Right now, as we speak, the most deadly weapons in the terrorists' aresenal, the Explosively-Formed Projectile, is flowing in an uninterrupted stream across the Iranian border. And the operators of same are flowing in from the other side, the Syrian border.

If my grasp of history is correct, the situation you are so alarmed about is a direct byproduct of the American introduced instability in Iraq combined with the failure to manage some sort of dialog with Tehran.

You are making my case for me and giving some credibility your hated ISG's as well.

I might bet you five dollars that if we and/or the Israeli's haul off and throw Iran into the same kind of chaos with which we have afflicted the Iraqis, you will be singing the same tune and calling this dance:

"Right now, as we speak, the most deadly weapons in the xyz's arsenal, (insert WMD, rogue scientist, CBW, etc. et al) are flowing across the Iranian border to willing operators in (insert XYZistan du jour, North Korea or wherever)."

If it is in the United States' interest to combat terror, proliferation of all types of arms and realted concerns, than the United States is going to have to pursue a policy of fostering stability to develop a framework in which to pursue those aims in the first place.

As you have clearly pointed out the instability introduced into Iraq by ill thought out, American military interventionism was the greatest of boons to our enemies and the terrorists.

The security climate in Iraq was dictated by Americans, not the enemy. We manufactured the threat; it just did not spontaneously materialize.

They are ENEMIES, William, and you'd do well to study up on that word, and the strategic imperative of defeating them. They kill Americans, and if you gave two damns about that, instead of the defeat and retreat in the face of a victorious enemy that you've been urging, even somebody as blinkered as you are MAY urge that we fight back, and stop respecting a line on a map that our enemies don't give a dam' about.

I have a few enemies myself which is how I know what to do with them.

Doing what they want me to do is the last thing on my mind.

Just try to get out of your Realist mindset for a moment (because, thank Gawd, the ISG's laughable product has utterly discredited it)

1. You might find that I am not a realist.

2. You call the ISG's product laughable and discredited. Has its recommendations been implemented yet?

3. How much damage has the ISG done to US interests since their recommendations were presented and how much more effective has the so called Bush Doctrine been based on that assesment?

and get your head around this concept: chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are our ALLIES, when used against our ENEMIES.

From a clinically militarist standpoint, you may be correct but as the facts have shown, chaos, anarchy, instability and the Fog of War are tools the Bush Administration has used to weaken our alliances, reduce the chances of successfully fulfilling our strategic aims, emboldened our enemies and forwarding the cause of the terrorists.

JAYZUS, this is so BASIC; how can you not SEE that?

That it is what I keep asking myself about you and your ilk.

Think big...really BIG.

We are strong enough to deploy many insturments of national power yet the Bush Administration is unwilling to do so. Why should we squabble in the vacumn when we can do something about it?

Lets throw a few combinations and watch 'em reel.

Regardless of our immediate disagreement on academic and practical security concerns, I wish you and the Lady of your Hall a Happy Christmas and the blessings of Peace and Prosperity in the coming year.

William

[Stan187]

The bold font are my own comments:

Frankly, I do not care if Iran and Syria are on the wagon or not as long as we have people in Washington capable of getting them to act in a manner that is pursuant to our interests (and if their crooked govenrments loose sway in the process, fine by me).

Which we do not, and did not whether before or after 9/11 and your so termed "American interventionism". A more direct approach with those countries who understand only power politics is necesarry.

And of the two, Syria is pretty worthless but Iran is gem of incalcuable worth viz U.S. interests in the Middle East and CARs which is why we should only smash it as the policy of last resort.

Actually, Syria's natural gas has our European allies very interested, so while perhaps not direct US interests, this is part of a greater strategic interest.

And do not continue to blame the chaos in Iraq on Iran and Syria because the facts clearly show that it is a result of American interventionism. When you hold the door for your enemy, do not complain if he saunters through it.

So Iran and Syria did not blatantly sponsor terrorism before our interventionism? They were just the nice guys on the block trying to make a decent buck, eh? Truly, you need to face reality.



Repeating the dangers of radical Pan Islam and trying to scare me with tales of decapitating, Islamic boogey men ad infinitum is not much of an argument.

Not till they're dicapitating your family I suppose.



If my grasp of history is correct, the situation you are so alarmed about is a direct byproduct of the American introduced instability in Iraq combined with the failure to manage some sort of dialog with Tehran.

Yup, the thing we really haven't tried is to negotiate with Iran. Iran is not willing to negotiate away anything of value to them. They have a president who is calling for a new Holocaust. While they sit at the negotiating tables, the militants that they sponsor are blowing up American and Israeli soldiers. What do you want to offer them? A withdrawal from Iraq so that their militia will gain control of it? What's next? Asking Israel to withdraw and move to Madagascar?


If it is in the United States' interest to combat terror, proliferation of all types of arms and realted concerns, than the United States is going to have to pursue a policy of fostering stability to develop a framework in which to pursue those aims in the first place.

Stable enemy regimes with goals of destroying us and our allies are not the best bet for the United States to combat terror, not matter how you try to spin it.

[Swift Sword]

Which we do not, and did not whether before or after 9/11 and your so termed "American interventionism". A more direct approach with those countries who understand only power politics is necesarry.

Well, if they only understand power politics, perhaps we should try it.

The Bush Administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do not seem to be doing much for US interests or impressing our friends, enemies and competitors so I doubt more of the same is going to get us very far.

The state of affairs does seem to point to the need for more political maneuvering.

Actually, Syria's natural gas has our European allies very interested, so while perhaps not direct US interests, this is part of a greater strategic interest.

Syrian gas reserves are not much of a contender.

The three largest reserves in the World are Russia, Iran and Qatar which account for a little over 50% of the total.

A stable, gas exporting Iran is a key interest of our European and Asian allies.

If we destroy Iran, Qatari capacity is going to go away with it as the resulting Gulf security climate is not going to be conducive to that type of economic activity.

Letting the Chinese "have" Iran or removing Iran from the picture and throwing the energy security of our European and Asian allies into Russia's hands is distinctly not in the U.S. interest.

So Iran and Syria did not blatantly sponsor terrorism before our interventionism? They were just the nice guys on the block trying to make a decent buck, eh? Truly, you need to face reality.

I never said they did not.

I am facing reality: the terrorists and their sponsors have stepped up their activities significantly by taking advantage of the instability introduced by the Americans in Iraq which is exactly what was predicted by pretty much everybody who seemed to have a basic knowledge of the region.

How has the war in Iraq helped forward the US interests of counter terrorism and counter proliferation?

No spin reality: it has not.

Terrorism is on the rise in Iraq, the Jihadis are getting their training in for the next war and we let Iraqi scientists, weapons and materials get away.

If we turn Iran ass over tea kettle the Jihadis will end up with the fruits of the Iranian weapons program and armaments industry and then where will we be?

The CARs will likely fall under the sway of the well armed radicals and Turkey will be very pressed which is going to have consequences for the weak, partially Muslim young states of Southeastern Europe if the Turks cannot manage the regional instability that would result from more ill thought out American interventionism in the Middle East.

Not till they're dicapitating your family I suppose.

And that is exactly what is probably going to happen if the current methods of managing the problem are continued.

If we keep doing things that the enemy wants and makes the terrorists stronger, my family is just as doomed as every other American family.

Yup, the thing we really haven't tried is to negotiate with Iran. Iran is not willing to negotiate away anything of value to them. They have a president who is calling for a new Holocaust. While they sit at the negotiating tables, the militants that they sponsor are blowing up American and Israeli soldiers. What do you want to offer them? A withdrawal from Iraq so that their militia will gain control of it? What's next? Asking Israel to withdraw and move to Madagascar?

They have something we want and we have something they want. Sounds like a perfect recipie for a chit chat at some level or another.

Apparently, our inability to bomb our way to a suitable outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan has sent them a clear message that they have a pretty good hand in the works so they might be up for a game.

In case you have not noticed, withdrawl or staying in Iraq is not going to change the Iranian effort to gain more influence in that country because those points are moot: the Iranians already control the better part of the Iraqi economy, have extensive political influence and they have done it all while our military is deployed there. Kind of makes one wonder about the efficacy of a military solution to the problem.

Regarding the Iranians killing American soldiers, that is a result of how we chose to define our vulnerability, not the result of the enemy's machinations. We picked the fight, not them.

Israel picks its fights just the same and by actively thwarting a stable, peacful and prosperous Lebanon it is suffering more death rather than less and will continue to do so in the future.

Stable enemy regimes with goals of destroying us and our allies are not the best bet for the United States to combat terror, not matter how you try to spin it.

There is no spin to it: stable enemy regimes are easier to manage than the anarchy and terrorism that go along with destabilizing them.

Stable enemy regimes have something to lose which means there are levers available to move them.

Anarchy and chaos with the Pan Islamisists having everything to gain and nothing to lose presents no levers to alter the course of events which effectively leaves us powerless.

If you want proof, you can study what has been going on in Iraq for the past several years. Saddam Hussein was no friend of ours but apparently the US and its allies could manage to keep him in his box and thwart his aims much more readily than they can control events in Iraq after introducing instability.

Afghanistan's bumper poppy crop should tell you something as well.

Anyway, I hope you are enjoying good cheer and festivities where you are,

William

[Trooth]

Interesting article. I have said for quite sometime that Iraq was a strategic clear-up before embarking on the real targets, Iran and Syria.

The US has had sanctions in place against Syria for some time. These are purely political, since Syria does not do enough trade with the US for the financial amounts to matter. It is, of course, the prelude to other forms of action.

However i don't think the US would want Israel to attack without the US being in a position to support if necessary - it is not in a position to do so currently. Hence Israel would be acting somewhat alone.

However the true WOT is against Iran and Syria and this is now stalled. Clearly the situation in Iraq is not what the US expected 3 years down the line. Meaning Israel or US or combined action against Syria has had to wait. This has allowed the situation in Iran to take the form of a self fulfilling prophecy. That is, the US declared its intent with regards to Iran 5 years ago ("Axis of Evil" and it invaded Iraq - logical extension Iran is next). By getting bogged down in Iraq the, presumably expected, action from Iran - that it would attempt to strengthen its defensive position and re-evaluate its nuclear shutdown - has been given a 3 year head start.

The US (or at least i suppose truer to say the current US administration) has unfinished plans for Syria and Iran. President Bush's "Lame duck" status diminishes his ability to act as the "big beasts" start to re-align themselves behind the candidates to be his Republican successor. Assuming that the Republican's hold onto the White House then the timetable may start up again - but it will be Iran that is the target, not Syria, since that nuclear programme will have had another two years.

[Stan187]

.

Well, if they only understand power politics, perhaps we should try it.

The Bush Administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do not seem to be doing much for US interests or impressing our friends, enemies and competitors so I doubt more of the same is going to get us very far.

The state of affairs does seem to point to the need for more political maneuvering.

So you're saying we should try power politics, but the power politics that we have played have been detrimental to our interests?

Syrian gas reserves are not much of a contender.

The three largest reserves in the World are Russia, Iran and Qatar which account for a little over 50% of the total.

A stable, gas exporting Iran is a key interest of our European and Asian allies.

If we destroy Iran, Qatari capacity is going to go away with it as the resulting Gulf security climate is not going to be conducive to that type of economic activity.

1. No one said we are going to level all of Iran. We aren't trying to turn the country back to the stone age, our objectives are a lot more precise than that.
2. If Qatari infrastructure is not damaged, there is no reason that the general security climate should threaten them for any large length of time.

Letting the Chinese "have" Iran or removing Iran from the picture and throwing the energy security of our European and Asian allies into Russia's hands is distinctly not in the U.S. interest.

Once again, no one ever suggested shooting the Iranian natural gas supply into ribbons.


I never said they did not.

I am facing reality: the terrorists and their sponsors have stepped up their activities significantly by taking advantage of the instability introduced by the Americans in Iraq which is exactly what was predicted by pretty much everybody who seemed to have a basic knowledge of the region.

How has the war in Iraq helped forward the US interests of counter terrorism and counter proliferation?

No spin reality: it has not.

Terrorism is on the rise in Iraq, the Jihadis are getting their training in for the next war and we let Iraqi scientists, weapons and materials get away.

If we turn Iran ass over tea kettle the Jihadis will end up with the fruits of the Iranian weapons program and armaments industry and then where will we be?

The CARs will likely fall under the sway of the well armed radicals and Turkey will be very pressed which is going to have consequences for the weak, partially Muslim young states of Southeastern Europe if the Turks cannot manage the regional instability that would result from more ill thought out American interventionism in the Middle East.



And that is exactly what is probably going to happen if the current methods of managing the problem are continued.

If we keep doing things that the enemy wants and makes the terrorists stronger, my family is just as doomed as every other American family.

So by fighting elsewhere instead of American soil, we are actually putting our families in more danger? I'm not buying.

They have something we want and we have something they want. Sounds like a perfect recipie for a chit chat at some level or another.

Well what should we concede to them then?

Apparently, our inability to bomb our way to a suitable outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan has sent them a clear message that they have a pretty good hand in the works so they might be up for a game.

In case you have not noticed, withdrawl or staying in Iraq is not going to change the Iranian effort to gain more influence in that country because those points are moot: the Iranians already control the better part of the Iraqi economy, have extensive political influence and they have done it all while our military is deployed there. Kind of makes one wonder about the efficacy of a military solution to the problem.

That's because we are trying to let all of the groups have a voice, you know democracy and all. We could just bomb every politician in Iraq who has ties to Iran. Is that what you want to do?

Regarding the Iranians killing American soldiers, that is a result of how we chose to define our vulnerability, not the result of the enemy's machinations. We picked the fight, not them.

So you'd rather them choose to fight us at their time and place of convenience?

Israel picks its fights just the same and by actively thwarting a stable, peacful and prosperous Lebanon it is suffering more death rather than less and will continue to do so in the future.

That's completely preposterious. Israel did not pick the fight. A stable Lebanon was it? So stable that Hizballah was part of the government and trying to undo it, while an army uncontrolled by the state romed free in the south and attacked a neighboring country at will. Sounds like an obelisk of stability and counterterrorist efforts.

There is no spin to it: stable enemy regimes are easier to manage than the anarchy and terrorism that go along with destabilizing them.

You mention terrorism going along with instability while ignoring my point of state sponsored terrorism.

Stable enemy regimes have something to lose which means there are levers available to move them.

Anarchy and chaos with the Pan Islamisists having everything to gain and nothing to lose presents no levers to alter the course of events which effectively leaves us powerless.

If you want proof, you can study what has been going on in Iraq for the past several years. Saddam Hussein was no friend of ours but apparently the US and its allies could manage to keep him in his box and thwart his aims much more readily than they can control events in Iraq after introducing instability.

Nevermind the fact that he was killing a lot more people than are dying there now, and that he was paying $25,000 to the families of all of the Palestinian suicide bombers and trying to destabilize the region as a whole.

Afghanistan's bumper poppy crop should tell you something as well.

Anyway, I hope you are enjoying good cheer and festivities where you are,

William