The rumors about a US attack on Iran have been recently re-energized by the sacking of Admiral Fallon, the arrival of a new US Navy Carrier in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf, Cheney’s recent visit to the region, General David “Ass-kissing chickenshit” Petraeus’ testimony in Congress, Secretary Gate’s silly comments about Iran wanting nukes after all, nevermind the NIE, or the New York Times resuming some of its worst war-mongering since the invasion of Iraq. All these are worrying signs, of course, but three recent developments look outright ominous to me: the US campaign against Sadr’s Mehdi Army, the attempts by the Siniora ‘government’ in Lebanon to trigger a crisis with Hezbollah and the Syrian ‘rapprochement’ with Israel and the USA.
Iraq:
It now clearly appears that the recent US attacks against Sadr’s Mehdi Army in Basra and in the capital are more than just a military phase of the (in)famous ‘redirection‘ (basically, the US switching sides and trying to create a grand anti-Shia coalition). As many others, I also initially thought that the attack on Sadr’s forces (who had fully respected the year long ceasefire) was a “preparation”, of sorts, of the upcoming elections. Recent revelations by Gareth Porter during an interview with Scott Horton (and the ominous developments in Lebanon) are beginning make me think that what is really going on is a careful preparation for an attack on Iran.
The situation in Iraq is both fluid and complex. Simply put, the US occupation forces do not have the means to fight the Sunni and Shia resistance forces at the same time. The US also knows that if it attacks Iran the Iraqi Shia will retaliate; both al-Hakim and al-Sadr have made that very clear in official declarations. Thus, the ‘redirection’ is a desperate attempt to secure as best can be the situation on the ground in Iraq with the help of the very same forces who only recently were called “terrorists” by CENTOM, the White House and the State Department. Having bought-off, at least for the time being, the Sunni resistance, the Americans are now turning their guns on the Shia or, should I say, the Shia which are considered a threat by the Occupation Forces: the Mehdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr.
(Maliki’s Dawa Party does not have a militia of its own and it relies on al-Hakim’s Badr Corps for muscle. These forces are, rather paradoxically, officially supported by both the USA and Iran. I have come to the conclusion that there is more to Iran’s support for the Maliki government than meets the eye.)
Yes, Iran does officially support the ‘democratically elected government of Iraq’ and some Iranian officials have even expressed their support for the “crackdown on armed militias” (a codeword for a war on the Sadrists). Still, I am getting a strong sense that Iran only sees the Maliki government as a useful tool to prevent the Americans from putting a CIA-stooge like Alawi or even a Sunni in power. By declaring its support for the Maliki government Iran is, in reality, declaring its support for the majority Shia in Iraq. However, I believe that Iran is fully aware of the fact that the Maliki government is hated everywhere in Iraq, including by most Shia, and that Maliki and al-Hakim are becoming pawns in the anti-Shia ‘redirection’. While there is no doubt that the Iranians has reservations about the personality of al-Sadr, they also realize that he is, by far, the most popular figure in Iraq and that he, unlike Maliki and al-Hakim, truly opposes the occupation.
Initially, the occupation of Iraq was objectively in Iran’s interest. It booted out Saddam and his Baathist clique, it brought the majority Shia to power and, best of all, it distracted the USA from an attack on Iran (which otherwise would have already happened). At this stage though, the only ‘advantage’ of the occupation for Iraq is the fact that it puts 150’000 US soldiers well within the reach of many different kinds of possible Iranian responses to a US attack. The US is well aware of that and the operations against the Sadrists appear to be an attempt to negate this situation (again, listen to Gareth Porter’s interview for more details).
My guess is that the Iranians, who are fully cognisant of all this, are covertly switching their support from Maliki to the Sadrists (while quite possibly pressuring al-Hakim and the Badr organization to be prepared to ‘drop’ Maliki at a moment’s notice). The Iranians simply cannot officially refuse to support the ‘democratically elected government of Iraq’, but they sure as hell do not need to give it more support than lip service statements. Think of it as a ‘redirection’ of their own, if you want, the quiet but crucial adaptation by Iran to a new reality on the ground.
What all this means, however, is that the war between the USA and Iran has already entered its first, covert, phase and that both sides are trying to prepare themselves for the inevitable full-scale war which, no doubt, will be carefully timed to help McCain get elected.
Lebanon:
Hezbollah is the other ally of Iran in the region, and a far more formidable one than any Iraqi Shia faction. Hezbollah is, arguably, the single most powerful player in the region, with a unmatched intelligence and analysis capability, a truly formidable military component and an ironclad alliance with Iran which guarantees it all the money it needs. Hezbollah is lead by the most popular man in the Arab world and has a cadre of highly competent and sophisticated officials. Lastly, Hezbollah is directly connected to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei (Sheikh Fadlallah is *not* the spiritual leader of Hezbollah, but only the spiritual leader of most of the non-Hezbollah Shia of Lebanon), and it enjoys his full support. Still, it does not have proximity access to hundred of thousands of US troops like the Sadrists do. What is does have is the ability to shut down anywhere from a 1/3 to 1/2 of Israel in less than one hour and that is a truly formidable deterrent not only for Israel, but even more so for the Neocon controlled USA.
The first attempt to destroy or cripple Hezbollah came with the 2006 war and ended in abject failure. This time, the Empire is trying to achieve by political means using its CIA-controlled stooges in Lebanon what it could not do with military force: substantially degrade Hezbollah’s ability to defend itself against an Israeli attack.
It all began with otherwise laughable allegations made by CIA puppets in Lebanon about Hezbollah placing hidden cameras to observe the Beirut airport (why Hezbollah would need to place cameras along the airport which is located next to the Shia neighborhoods of Beirut is left unclear). Next came the recent statement by the Sinora regime about its decision to dismantle the Hezbollah communication network. Since the Phalangists understand perfectly that Hezbollah will *never* let that happen this appears to be nothing less of a provocation to create a casus belli and force Hezbollah into a civil war which it has always refused to contemplate (Hezbollah is the only faction in Lebanon which never turned its guns on fellow their Lebanese). The preparation for a conflict with Hezbollah brings me to the third “blinking” indicator and warning:
Syria:
Syria, a longtime covert ally of the Empire which is more than happy to torture kidnapped suspects on behalf of the CIA, is still my prime suspect in the murder of Imad Mughniyah (see here, here and here). His widow agrees with me. Of course, the murder itself was ordered by the Israelis, but there is no conceivable way they could have pulled this off without Syrian assistance. To make sure that Syria “behaves” the Israelis have used a carrot and stick approach. The stick part was the recent (and otherwise comical) “warning” strike on the alleged Syrian-DPRK “nuclear facility” and the carrot part is the recent ouvertures made to Syria by Olmert to return the Golan Heights.
Make no mistake, for all the empty words about the “axis of evil”, Syrian support for terrorism in general and Hezbollah in particular, Assad is just another garden variety Baathist dictator who will do anything to remain in power. Sure, Assad will negotiate and bargain, as any smart Middle-East businessman would do, but he will not ask for too high a price for his final sellout (having seen Saddam hanged sure was convincing enough for him). So far, Assad has clerverly impersonated an Arab patriot and nationalist, but he is clearly working out the modalities of going down the same road as Mubarak in Egypt or Abdullah in Jordan: becoming an obedient servant of the Empire.
Conclusions:
Connect the dots here and the picture is becoming clear: the Shias in general and Iran in particular are about to be openly attacked. The covert phase of this agression has already been under way for at least a year now and it will soon be over. The next phase will probably consist of either an Isareli strike on Iranian nuclear objectives or a US strike on Pasdaran bases inside Iran. The aim of the operation will be to trigger an Iranian response which, in turn, will trigger a full-scale massive bombing campaign against Iran. The purpose of this campaign will not be to destroy a (non-existing) nuclear weapons program, but to destroy the Iranian economy (just like what the Israelis did to Lebanon in 2006 or what the Americans did to Iraq many times over) thereby inflicting a crippling strike against the economy of the only country in the Middle-East which openly dares to defy Israel. I predict that this goal will be substantially achieved and that in response to this attack the Iranians will finally embark on a full-scale nuclear weapons program. It appears that being a fully compliant member of the NPT will only get Iran bombed. No matter how distasteful and immoral Iran’s leaders find nuclear weapons (Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has even issued an official ruling condemning nuclear weapons a long time ago) a US/Israeli agression will only prove to them that having nuclear weapons is the *only* way to protect their country and their people.
Peace,
Good Analysis Saker however I would deem it a bit premature. You are not wrong in this however you are not entirely right either.
Iran’s role in Iraq, in Lebanon in terms of supporting Hizbullah and its relation with Syria puts them as the most formidable power broker in this scenario. I stated on your blog a few weeks back that US is pulling every trick in the book to cover up its flaws and its loss. Now the US has only one way to ensure that the whole exercise in Iraq and Afghanistan is seen as a success is by attacking Iran. But at the same time they know that they are indulging themselves in a very big calculated risk here given that they are lacking healthy number of troops, they have no allies in terms of going to war with Iran and not to mention the outcry it will bring in the Shia world. The Shias of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and other places including West will make themselves heard, not to mention the role Hizbullah might play if US initiates an attack on Iran. Moreover the bigger worry is what if the Iraqi Shias actually turn on them for attacking Iran? Nationalism is something certain Iraqis hold dear to themselves and that is why Maliki is touted by the likes of US because they know foremost he only cares about his country hence having him in the pocket would mean that tomorrow if they attack Iran then Maliki would not say anything. This act of Maliki would eventually be the end of his political career but I do not think US will take that risk.
Moreover seeing through with this will lead to the confrontation that I talked about previously in my posts imagine the Shias and the Kurds uniting to harm US in the region will cause US to lose face and leave Iraq for good.
Other than that the way Iran is conducting itself is quite intriguing too. Knowing that one wrong move can cause big problems for them they are clever in how they are working with the Sadrists as well as the Hakims. Know this though Sadrists have shot themselves in the foot thanks to Moqtada when he made that dubious statement about Iran in his Al Jazeera interview. Regardless of that I think and believe Iran would not stop supporting him nor would it focus more on Hakim than him. You have to realise that Hakims and Badr Brigades are no longer working for the nation per say. They are following the line thrown to them by the Occupiers and at the same time he has links with the Iranians, a dangerous combination.
So in all what I find is that US will play the mind games by threatening Iran but the practicality of the situation will make them despair and they would not be able to do anything. Bush knows very well that this is his moment to finish Iran once and for all but let me also say that any attack on Iran regardless of its magnitude will unite the Iranian Nation. Yes, a great number of them are not happy with the Government, not happy with their President but these people are nationalist and they would not let a sort of foreign entity invade them. Saddam tried it and saw what happened and had to go back to his big brother US to ensure his survival.
So its all abt the waiting game just like chess :)
Regards
Ayaz
I have a certain revulsion toward being imersed into the ugly details of strategy, but I do appreciate vin’s work. It’s like being drawn into the minutia of your arguing children, when the point it to make them stop it. That said, the US army really likes an enemy out in the open, where the US can leverage air power and “kill em all let God sort them out” strategy. If Sadr really comes out, that will be the opportunity to unload on him. This pussy footing around in the rabbit warrens of Sadr city in not the style of fighting the US wants. The low lever fighting without any excuse to unload on Sadr is the most painful to the US. Every time a dust storm occurs(cause the air power is can’t be leveraged), Sadr rockets the green zone- that kind of thing. Under the guise of a “real” insurrection, which it is in the ability of the Pr machine to gin up, the US can kill as many as it takes to make Sadr kneel, and nobody will be counting the bodies when we are in that mode. I’m afraid thats whats up. The US wants to goad Sadr into the open. Then too, under the cover of a general insurrection, the US can unload on “unhelpful Iran” which was the point of the exercise in the first place.Remember, the planners of this thing will declare victory not as a measure of US blood or even reputation, but how bad they can get away with clobbering Iran and hezbolah. A disaster, from a real US centric viewpoint is just fine if you want the US in the foxhole with Israel against hezbolah.
If Sadr really comes out, that will be the opportunity to unload on him. This pussy footing around in the rabbit warrens of Sadr city in not the style of fighting the US wants.
Yes, this is why they are doing *exactly* the same thing as the Israelis are doing in Gaza: building a wall around Sadr City and then bombing it from the air. But if the IOF could not make Hamas kneel in Gaza (1.5 million people) there is no chance in hell that the Americans will succeed in Sadr City.
A disaster, from a real US centric viewpoint is just fine if you want the US in the foxhole with Israel against hezbolah
Oh, but the US is already very much in that foxhole. I would argue that sine Dubya was elected the USA has, for all practical purposes, become a province of Israel, albeit a large one. At this point there is no point in faking anything else. Look at the war of 2006 and try to figure out whether that was a case of the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog? In reality, there is only ONE brain deciding ALL the body movements of the dog, tail included.
The entire Middle-East and, for that matter, the rest of the planet has long figured that one out. The only ones who are kept in ignorance of this reality are the Americans, at least those who get their news from the corporate media.
VS,
Very good analysis with which I am in agreement.
In terms of sequence, I don’t think that the first blows will be directed at Iran. As you said, the US will try to eliminate sources of potential trouble. Targeting the Mahdi army is in this category.
However, before a single missile is fired at Iran, USrael will mount a major ground operation against south Lebanon. Iran’s first line of defense lies there. An air campaign, like that in August 2006, will not work. This will be a major ground invasion of south Lebanon.
USrael will attempt to distract Hizbullah on as many fronts as possible including, if possible, fighting a civil war.
To outflank Hizbullah in the south and to hit its bases in the Biqa’a valley, the Israelis will come from unexpected directions, including the area close to the Syrian border (from the Golan). The “peace” overture towards Syria is to keep it out of this coming attack on Hizbullah.
Just as in 2006, Assad will do nothing, besides issuing meaningless and empty declarations.
Simultaneous with the Israeli attack on Hizbullah, a major Israeli push will be mounted into Gaza, to crush Hamas, re-install Abbas and “finalize” the Palestinian solution being readied by Livni and Rice.
Only after these preliminary steps are completed, and successfully, will Iran be directly confronted. In the meantime the disinformation campaign against it will become even more intense.
A timeline could be like this: Between the end of May and later summer to start the campaign against Hizbullah and Hamas. Depending on the results of this phase, the Iran campaign could start in early fall; just in time to guarantee McCain the election.
Dear Tony,
Thank you for your excellent analysis with which I fully concur. You mention a lot of things which I did not cover such as the inevitable invasion of Gaza.
It is quite possible that, as you write, Lebanon will be invaded from the ground, including the Bekaa valley. No doubt that this will be presented by the Zionists as “protecting the elected democratic government of Lebanon against armed terrorist militias”. Still, a part of me just cannot believe that the Israelis would be that friggin stupid as to re-enter Lebanon *again*!! But then, I think of Olmert and Dubya and I would not put that past them.
I am rapidly loosing hope that there is anything which can be done to prevent all this. Last time, it was the US military brass which put the breaks on, but now that General Betrayus is in charge of CENTCOM there is nothing, nothing at all, stopping these crazies from going ahead with their plan.
God help us all!
Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change After 9/11
by Gareth Porter
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12795
“Three weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regimes in Iran, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.”
one thing to bear in mind. There will be no “how to lose an army” or Sicilian vespers
kind of thing against the US armed forces in Iraq. With modern tactical air cover, the US is impossible to defeat in the field. US losses over a substantial time may be so great,that the US will quit, but this is a political loss. Faced with any sort of a breakout by an adversary, the US can and will turn the focus of the resistance into the face of the moon.
With modern tactical air cover, the US is impossible to defeat in the field
I very much disagree here.
One of my teachers, himself a USAF colonel who used to work on one of the stealth fighter programs, used to say that (in some hypothetical conflict) the US air force would win the air war, only to come back to base and find that the officer’s mess has been already taken over by the other side…
Look at the 2006 war. Tactical air power appeared ‘invicinble’ as long as the opposing side was willing to play by the rules and deploy easily detectable units. That has now fundamentally changed.
The fist unambiguous proof that tactical airpower cannot get the job done was in Kosovo were a huge NATO air operation not only totally failed to degrade the Serbian forces in Kosovo but even failed to affect it even on the margins. While the corporate press carefully overlooks this fact, the outcome of the Kosovo war was nothing short of a mind-boggling disaster for NATO airpower (that is why NATO ended up bombing civilians in Kosovo, Serbia and even Montenegro).
The second clear proof was the 2006 war in Lebanon were the Israeli Air Force failed to even make a difference.
Then there is the case of Gaza which the Israelis have been bombing regularly (albeit on a much smaller scale than in Lebanon).
I predict that the bombing of Sadr city will go the same way as the airpower in Basra: close to useless.
Even in Fallujah the Americans had to use a large ground force. Ditto for the Russians in Chechnya.
Airpower only performs miracles in Hollywood and in Tom Clancy books. In real wars tac air is just one of the many components of a combined arms operation.
In Iraq there are 150’000 US soldiers all over the country, mostly in small bases ALL of which are potentially at risk. Even the Green Zone, Abu Ghraib and the airport are at risk. Also, keep in mind that the FIRST thing the Iranians are going to be doing if they are attacked is reign down missiles (very accurate ones at that) at all these high-value static targets. All the Iraqi Shia will need to do is literally mopping up operations to finish off the Americans.
Ok, I am exaggerating here, but that is to try to make you think differently about the likely battlefied geometry of a likely clash between the USA and the Shia…
In reality the Americans also have formidable assets on the ground such as artillery, armor, good recon, well trained and decently equipped soliders, much better medics, etc. Taking on 150’000 US soliders will take way more than 150’000 Mehdi army troops. But tactical air is not what will make the difference; the sheer potential firepower of the US ground forces will.
But the Iraqis also have their own advantages: anger, courage, knowledge of the terrain, the capability to hide when needed and, of course, superior numbers. Remember the Vietnamese officer who told his American counterpart “we kill some of you, you kill many of us, then we win”? Same here.
The US is in a far, FAR, worse situation in Iraq than ever in Vietnam. Vietnam at least had safe areas, whereas Iraq has none.
No, take my word for it, “how to loose an army” is very, very, possible.
I respect your judgment about it.
Maybe you are right. Imagine though a combat unit advancing on an objective, and when resistance becomes stubborn I thought they could rubble-ize the troublesome region. Certainly a political loss is possible as in Vietnam if the long term prospect of a any kind of satisfying victory is seen as almost 0. I really like your detective work and respect your analysis.
VS,
William S. Lind (one of the authorities on 4th generation war) has expressed similar views to yours. He too believes that air power is overrated. He also has expressed fear that the US could lose its army in Iraq, after its supply lines are cut, and bases isolated and attacked.
Are you familiar with his work? What do you think of him, if you know him?
In 2004 I was in NAFB (not very far from Area 51) and they were training pilots to attack a country; I asked the officers on what they had been working, but they told me they did not know really the content on their mission. It was a kind of secret reception, I was not even supposed to be there, and no newspapers whatsoever wrote a story about it.
When I asked them if it was Iraq or Iran, finally a guy told me it might be in Iran. In total around 500 people had been trained and were sent the following day to the Golfe, before the mission got suddenly aborted and I never heard from them again. I don’t think they were like going to attack Iran, but this option was on the table for sure 200%…
@peter saker: Imagine though a combat unit advancing on an objective, and when resistance becomes stubborn I thought they could rubble-ize the troublesome region.
They can, no doubt. Therefore what the opposing force needs to do is a) not present a target and b) make it politically costly to rubble-ize the troublesome region; ideally, a combination of both. There is no overstating the importance of not presenting a target as opposed to winning a pitched battle. Re-read Lind – he got that right.
@Tony: Are you familiar with his work? What do you think of him, if you know him?
Yes, and I largely agree with him. I am not in love with this nomenklature of conflicts (4GW), but he basically got it right and his article “how to loose an army” is a very well written warning of what the USA is risking. As I wrote above, the Americans are tactically smart and it all ain’t as easy as it sounds, but yes, the risk is there to literally loose an army in Iraq. On one hand I am absolutely certain that the Americans would use nukes before that happens so let’s hope that it does not but on the other I want them out of Iraq so I hope for something not quiet as dramatic as “loosing an army” but painful enough to get them to “declare victory and leave” (truly an American specialty).
@sr de france: I am sure that the Americans have plenty of fancy weapons in development and already deployed. That is the number one American problem: they think that weapon systems win wars – they don’t (willpower does). The second huge weakness of the US military is the weapons procurement system which has weapons designed by and for engineers and were spending money is an end in itself. The thing is that a “sophisticated” or “advanced” weapon is not at all the same thing as a *good* weapon.
Americans keep looking for the “silver bullet” which will make them win. Their weapon systems reflect an engineer’s approach to warfare, not a solider’s one, and they forget that a smart enemy will simply not fight the type of war they want him to fact. Saddam did exactly that, Nasrallah did not. Compare the results.
@sr de france: I should add that the folks are the United States Air Force Air Warfare Center were not necessarily working on some new weapon system, though that is what comes to mind first. They could have also been rehearsing a strike on Iran as the entire infrastructure of NAFB suits itself very well to this kind of complex and multi-layered simulations.
Still, ask yourself what the USA can and cannot do in Iran. Can the USA do to Iran what Israel did to Lebanon? Definitely yes. There is nothing the Iranians can throw at the American airpower to stop them. Can they destroy a good part of the Iranian (civilian) nuclear research and development infrastructure? Yes. Could they succeed in an effective decapitating anti-leadership strike? Possibly, but the entire Iranian polity is not dependent on personalities so while this would feel good, it would achieve nothing. Could they achieve “regime change”? No way? Could they stop Iran from developing nukes? No way. Could they substantially degrade the Iranian military? No way (though they will claim otherwise).
So all they will be able to achieve is:
1) strengthen the government
2) kill many civilians
3) push the Iranians to develop nukes
4) destroy a good part of the Iranian economy triggering misery and poverty
5) risk loosing Iraq (but then, Iraq is lost anyway)
That’s all the good folks at NAFB will ever achieve. What a waste of talent! (I have a great deal of respect for the skills of American airmen, even if I don’t like their aircraft too much)
Vin- The problem for Sadr is to avoid being placed in the position ahead of an advancing US army which WILL us tactical air to crush anything in their path. PR is the problem for the US. If the media in the US can be convinced that the US is responding to attacks or some such rationalization, PR is covered. So how can Sadr prevent being a target. He can’t hope for a breakout in a traditional sense. He must avoid being suckered into massing his forces at any point. But this is the only battlefield way to defeat the US. Any defeat of the US will have to be a failure to do the PR work to justify the overwhelming use of force required to fight an urban war the way the US likes to do it. OR the homefront really losing faith that there is an end to it anytime soon- like Vietnam.
I think thee US could retard Iranian nuclear development for a decade with bombing. That enterprise requires a specialized large industrial base, power plants, and things that can be wrecked from the air.
The best defense Iran could mount would be to flood Iraq with the IFP penetrators that I read just destroyed an MRAP and killed the occupants. And forget breakout. Keep the tactics gorilla so the US cant use their rolling crush-all tactical air machine ahead of advancing infantry.
The problem for Sadr is to avoid being placed in the position ahead of an advancing US army which WILL us tactical air to crush anything in their path.
Think of a bunch of killer bees attacking a SWAT team. That is what Iraq is for the occupation forces. Sure, they have got advanced firepower and gear, but no matter how many “bees” they kill, they are in excruciating pain and even if that is unlikely to kill them, it will make them run sooner or later.
Insurgent guerilla do no mass their forces, ever. Its just not how they define victory. What they do is inflict pain. Beyond that, all they need for being “victorious” is to survive, that’s it. This is why the occupation forces will “declare victory and leave”. Paradoxically, they will most probably leave *undefeated* at least in a tactical sense. Just like Israel left Lebanon “undefeated”.
The Russians did eventually win in Chechnya, at least for the time being, but they had to transform themselves into “bee killers” something which the US military just cannot do. Also, remember what the Afghans said after being invaded by the USA: the Russians were far, far, more capable and dangerous foes even though they were underfunded, underfed, underequipped and, to a certain degree, undertrained. The US Army was OVERfunded, OVERfed, OVERequipped and OVERtrained, at least compared to the Soviet 40th Army, but they were – and still are – a vastly *inferior* adversary: all they can control is Kabul (the Soviets always controlled every single city in Afghanistan and most of the roads).
The US Army is fine ready to fight “yesterday’s war” and it is very good at it. The only problem here is that nobody with even half of a brain will ever give them a chance to fight it.
Again – think “killer bees vs SWAT team” and you will get a pretty darn good idea of what all this can look like.
I think we are in agreement. But an army being destroyed is not the problem for the US. The sustained pain with no relief in sight is what will cause a political defeat. Like Israel in Lebanon, and the US in Vietnam, if no path to anything that can be recast as a victory can be seen, the attacker usually gives up. It’s all in the expectation of victory in any politically sustainable time frame being believably withdrawn.
But the US public will stand for unbelievable savagery in any pitched battles. Like against Japan, the PR machine will go to work, so the concentration of Sadr’s forces in Sadr city is a terrible weakness for him. In Vietnam, only after the US basically withdrew, did breakout occur by the NVA.
I appreciate your blog a lot by the way.
Yes, but remember that killer bees can, sometimes, actually kill a SWAT member or even the entire team, in particular if they get some help from, say, a sniper watching it all.
Iran can lob so many accurate and powerful missiles at the Green Zone, the airport or other US high value targets as to make things really, really hard there. The US logistical lines of re-supply run through the Shia controlled south, and Sadr City has 3+ million people in there and, therefore, a huge potential to over-run any US checkpoints and barricades. Add to this that the US simply cannot trust the Badr Corps (a.k.a the “Iraqi Army”) or the Sunni Resistance (a.k.a. the “sons of Iraq” and the “concerned local citizens”), add to this that overrunning the airport or, at least, shutting it down is real possibility for a combined Iran+Shia effort and you will see that “loosing an army” is definitely possible.
Willam S. Lind brilliantly and accurately called the entire US strategy in Iraq “Operation Provide Targets” and he is correct.
You mention the PR machine and you are totally correct. But remember that a PR machine always collapses catastrophically. The Israeli public opinion was all piss and vinegar when they attacked Lebanon, even the (much mis-named) “Peace Now” movement supported the aggression (only B’Tselem opposed it) and what happened? Within a short period of time, the public mood swinged right back to despondency and fear. True, the Israelis had missiles falling all around whereas the US public is suffering no such things. But think of the combined news of, say, a barrel of crude at 250-300 dollars and the catastrophic loss of life following the missile strikes on the Green Zone *with plenty of dead reporters*. Then imagine a Marine-protected resupply column totally destroyed near Basra and the simultaneous bombing by the USAF of an Iranian orphanage near Khorramshar (mistakenly identified as a Pasdaran command center).
You get the picture, I am sure.
Thanks for your kind words about my blog. I try really hard and it is nice to hear that somebody cares!
well, I had thought that there were a couple of actual stories to go with this press release from monday, but the dates were not current so I wiped the previous post.
The US also knows that if it attacks Iran the Iraqi Shia will retaliate; both al-Hakim and al-Sadr have made that very clear in official declarations.
You really think Hakim, Badr, and the Iraqi army would attack the American hand that feeds them? I think they would do what they could politically and diplomatically to block an attack but once it was ordered they would “protest” the use of Iraqi airspace and soil for hitting Iran, meanwhile Sadr would definitely step up the attacks on the occupiers and gain favor with Iran (gain being relative to Hakim – no point in having a puppet that doesn’t help you when you get attacked).
I’m curious if you have a source or a direct quote from Hakim that he will attack U.S. forces if they bomb Iran.
You really think Hakim, Badr, and the Iraqi army would attack the American hand that feeds them?
Yes. In case of an attack on Iran I do think that al-Hakim and the Badr Corps would turn on the US. Here is an exceprt of the article by William S Lind “How to lose an army”:
A British journalist I know, one with long experience in Iraq, told me he asked the head of SCIRI, which controls the Badr Brigades, how he would respond if the U.S. attacked Iran. “Then,” he replied, “we would do our duty.”
I think that is a direct quote. I highly recommend the article which you can find here: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_12_18/article.html
Mind you, I have zero trust in Hakim and even less so in Maliki. They are both collaborators and, as any other collaborators, they are for sale to the highest bidder. The thing to remember here is that Iran might well be the highest bidder in Iraq, in particular in the long run, and that even if al-Hakim betrays Iran, most of the Badr Corps is, for all practical purposes, Iranian controlled.
As for the “Iraqi Army”, its something which simply does not exist. Its a largely myth invented for propaganda purpsoes.
I read that piece when it came out. The benefit of that statement is that it’s not clear what their duty would be in the situation.
You say Hakim and SIIC are collaborators (true), but then expect them to attack the U.S. in retaliation for bombing Iran out of principle? Collaborators are spineless scum who, by definition, are without principle. That is why I don’t think they will bite the American hand that feeds them.
Sure they’re pro-Iranian but they have to realize the Americans plan to stay there at least 10-100 years and it would be the height of stupidity to fight the U.S. given that situation.
they have to realize the Americans plan to stay there at least 10-100 years and it would be the height of stupidity to fight the U.S. given that situation.
But that is the point: I believe that the Americans will loose any war to Iran (please read my article about this here: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/07/irans-asymmetrical-response-options.html) and, thereafter, they will also loose Iraq.
They can plan to stay 10’000 years, buyt that is also what they planned to do in Vietnam right up to infamous rooftop evacuation scene :-)