Practically speaking, our ground forces aren't currently sized properly to invade Iran & sustain our on-going global committments.

This is just one of the predictable consequences of the Iraq war which our leaders evidently lacked the vision (or chose not) to anticipate &/or countermeasure.

And it appears (from the outside) that those leaders who may have foreseen, & warned of negative consequences such as these were ignored, forced-out, or chose to leave (maybe in frustration).

True Leaders, in business or govt, seek a full range of feedback & not just a cadre of yes-men telling one what one wants to hear.

Our Founding Fathers clearly understood this when they penned the words "checks & balance" into the Constitution.

I agree.

but it might prove necessary to push Iranian forces back from the Iran/Iraq border by 50 or 100 miles in order to provide a buffer against Iranian infiltration of Iraq.

We enforced the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq from 1991 to 2003. No reason we can't establish an eastern no-go zone as well as a western no-go zone while we're at it. I wouldn't be opposed to a Bosnia-style air campaign over Iran proper, and I imagine, unlike his predecessor, Bush could pull it off without blowing up the Chinese embassy. Although, come to think of it, blowing up the Chinese embassy in Teheran wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

My question to you Mr. Noonan is simple - How? Assume for a moment that you're hypothesis is correct (not a point I’m actually willing to concede, but it does beg the larger question), and we need to take military action against Iran (as well as escalate the current effort in Iraq). How is it that we go about doing this? The military is stretched to the breaking point (some of us would say beyond it), troops are rotating back in country for 3rd, 4th, and in some cases even 5th tours. Our force strengths outside of the current Middle Eastern theater is effectively diminished, and we’re using “stop-gaps” to reduce the number of active duty departures. Does anyone actually believe that North Korea just woke up one morning and decided to test a nuclear bomb? Of course not, they understand that the US is in no position to pursue them militarily. They can walk around and wave a very big stick because we can’t backup any threats that we might have made.

No, from a purely practical standpoint, further military involvement does SIGNIFICANT more harm to our security than good. Our enemies understand that we can’t press much more militarily; it’s time that the American people start to understand that as well.

My question to you Mr. Noonan is simple - How? Assume for a moment that you're hypothesis is correct (not a point I’m actually willing to concede, but it does beg the larger question), and we need to take military action against Iran (as well as escalate the current effort in Iraq). How is it that we go about doing this? The military is stretched to the breaking point (some of us would say beyond it), troops are rotating back in country for 3rd, 4th, and in some cases even 5th tours. Our force strengths outside of the current Middle Eastern theater is effectively diminished, and we’re using “stop-gaps” to reduce the number of active duty departures. Does anyone actually believe that North Korea just woke up one morning and decided to test a nuclear bomb? Of course not, they understand that the US is in no position to pursue them militarily. They can walk around and wave a very big stick because we can’t backup any threats that we might have made.

No, from a purely practical standpoint, further military involvement does significantly more harm to our security than good. Our enemies understand that we can’t press much more militarily; it’s time that the American people start to understand that as well.

Some might think this post a little crazy. I disagree. I think it's extremely, eye-buggingly crazy. Iran's "war" on us "started in 1979 and is intensifying with every passing hour"? Twenty-seven years of intensifying war, and what do we see? A guy "carrying documents" in Baghdad?

Read that paragraph that starts with "Several good journalists" again and tell me it isn't a prime example of the kind of lunatic rumor-mongering and halfwit "information" that always blows up in your face.

As for what "President Bush will propose," let's recap the bidding: The one successful, valid move they made (in Afghanistan), they abandoned and is falling apart. Their big Senior Prom, in Iraq, is an unmitigated disaster, and is having exactly the opposite effects from those intended. And now you want them to "prepare the nation and our military for war with Iran"?

And you guys think you deal with reality. So does every schizophrenic. Good luck to ya.

Not going to happen. If Bush were even to suggest starting war with another country, he would be "booed off the stage". He has zero political capital. He has zero credibility with the American people. He has zero credibilty with the international community. It's unfortunate that this is the case because Iran is a more serious threat that Iraq ever was. We will all suffer for the mistakes made.

Maichael Ledeen... because he was so correct about Iraq

Best part Aztec... Bush has the office and the Constitutional Authority and legal standing to commit our troops if he sees fit.

No amount of you not liking it, no amount of Chirac not liking it, no amount of Pelosi not liking it matters. If there is a danger in his view, he can do it.

After all, isn't that what Clinton did in Bosnia? Where was the clear and present danger to the American people with ethnic fighting in Yugoslavia?

Oh well, that's the difference...some of us know how this government works, and some of us only know how this government works according to CNN and how France wants it to work.

Personally, I hope we don't go into Iran unless the world wakes up and goes with us. It'd be smart to let the people of Iran get even closer to welcoming the removal of the current Iranian Administration.

Although, come to think of it, blowing up the Chinese embassy in Teheran wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Posted by: Retired Spook at January 4, 2007 11:06 AM

China is only one of a number of your 'friends' who have an embassy in Tehran, Spook. Who would be next in line for a good old American ass kicking, Britain? Australia? Oh, how silly of me, of course the Canadian embassy would be number two on the list. Forget the fact that during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, the Canadian Embassy was responsible for the safe return to the U.S. of those unfortunate American citizens. Doesn't really matter, does it, as long as you get to be the school yard bully.

Aztec is right. Because of Iraq, we will not see another "preemptive war" for a long time. Even if it is actually warrented.

Spook,
It is much easier to enforce a "no fly zone" than a "no go zone". It's not a bad idea if it was feasable, but I don't believe it is. You're talking about a huge chunk of dirt to police and right now I think we're a bit tied up with other things.

We need to send 100,000 more troops to Iraq; send aircraft carriers in the region and get on board with other nations; who want a nuclear-free middle east; there is no choice we must act now!

Deleted - slanders

Gavin finally acknowledges what most have long suspected... he hates people of color.

And he demonstrated again that he's mildly mentally handicapped.

Do you really think you're doing anything by the inane statements you make? You only look unhinged.

I disagree with many here, and I agree with a few on the left, some at least are smart and well thought out.

You've never been either.

Gavin finally acknowledges what most have long suspected... he hates people of color.

And he demonstrated again that he's mildly mentally handicapped.

Do you really think you're doing anything by the inane statements you make? You only look unhinged.

I disagree with many here, and I agree with a few on the left, some at least are smart and well thought out.

You've never been either.

You're talking about a huge chunk of dirt to police and right now I think we're a bit tied up with other things.

Parker, I was thinking more in terms of a fleet of these armed with Hellfire missles.

CO, still no sense of humor, I see. That must suck. The Chinese embassy reference was mostly tongue-in-cheek. The Chinese are, however, one of the biggest suppliers of nuclear technology to Iran. If a stray missle or smart bomb "accidently" hit the Chinese embassy, I wouldn't be terribly upset.

semby, the Stennis Carrier Group is heading there soon (if not already deployed), as is the Nimitz. I know I'm dating myself, but I still think one of these would be an excellent addition to any naval presence in the Persian Gulf.

Not sure what happened to that last link.

Now that the Iraq thing has soured, you toadies just can't wait to get your next war fix. You're addicted to that surge of pride - so little felt in your otherwise pathetic existence - of seeing the US war machine unleashed.

Oh the Glory! Bush's ratings will soar! And you'll feel much better about yourself for worshipping him.

That's what this war-monfering is really about - it's therapy for you poor insecure toads.

CO... thats one scary thing BTW- we all are aware that China and Russia are behind Iran. so if any one really beleives Iran is the target of Bush, then you have a eye opening truth to gather.

Bush is flirting with WW3 and not sure why- but it is more than obvious.

Wow, that's some tough talk there, Mr. Noonan. Unfortunatley, I understand we're a little short on troops for such an invasion. That's where you come in. You seem to be the most enthusiastic supporter, so please go to www.goarmy.com and sign up to help this wonderful cause. And please take Michael Ledeen with you. We need a real genius like him fighting in the trenches.

file this under "ain't gonna happen"..
aside from believing anything michael ledeen says (zero, ZERO cred), the sheer magnitude of the lunacy of such an idea makes it a flat-out non-starter. you think the military commanders on the ground - who will be responsible for expanding the theatre placing an already stretched army under even grater duress - are going to take further direction from righteous, failed, neocon policy wonks like ledeen?
operation uh uh!

Considering the close ties many Shiite clerics have with Iran, and that some (notably Sadr) have had said they will assist in defending Iran, one wonders why the author wishes to see our troops die. They would. Unnecessarily. For nothing.

Quite a policy you have there. Let's hope reality wins out over your fantasies.

"An increase in troop levels in Iraq serves the dual purpose of curbing the Iranian-sponsored terrorist violence, as well as providing larger striking forces in theater for any possible military action against Iran"

The planned increase is a) only 30,000 troops and b) only temporary. And they're sort of needed in Iraq - in order to pacify the place. And, even if you ignore that - you're proposing invading and occupying Iran to a depth of 50-100 miles, all along the Iraqi border, and then defending the ground you've taken against conventional and irregular attack, with 30,000 men? That's, er, interesting. Or do you think you should strip some troops from Iraq? Where exactly are your supply lines going to run through, in this scenario? If it's through Iraq, then you'll have problems. Becuase guess who runs the Iraqi government? The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Dawa Islamic Party. Whose side do you think they'd be on if the US invaded Iran? (Clue's in the names, guys.)

And before someone suggests sending more troops: there are no more troops to send. There are currently no active or reserve Army units rated as 'combat ready' outside Iraq and Afghanistan. At the current pace of deployment, according to COS General Peter Pace, "we will break the active component". Gen Abizaid believes that even an increase of 20,000 troops "cannot be supported". (Both men were testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee late last year.)

You can't go to war without an army, and right now yours is too busy.

ill support the war against iran if only republicans and their children go there. and pay for it. divert our tax money to something meaningful - like discussing the issues of WHY we are so hated and what we can do about it besides starting a nuclear war. there are other alternatives.

you guys wanna pay for it? you guys want your kids' blood to pay for it? go right ahead - ill even put a support our troops sticker on my skateboard! oh yeah, this troll is ripe...

I thank God everyday that George W. Bush & Dick Chaney are at the helm. They are realists who "get it" with regard to the threats, both economic & physical, to our beloved country.

Yes, there is some statecraft I do disagree with, but I also disagree with my wife about what to make for dinner. This is not material in the scheme of our overall survival.

Wake up America, there's finally a President & Vice President in the Whitehouse who's got your back. They are my family's Wingmen.

I sometimes think that some of you folks are too stupid to live. What country was the greatest bulwark against Iran? Oh, gee, was that Iraq? Of course, the operative word being "was".

First, I must say I’m surprised to hear you advocate use of our military men and women for “primarily (domestic) political” reasons. Our soldiers and Marines should never be sent somewhere to risk their lives with the primary intent of accomplishing a political agenda.

Second, it isn’t only Democrats and pundits who are advocating a strategy to draw down our fighting forces in Iraq; it is the top military brass appointed by Bush (who he has stated explicitly over and over that he will do as they advise him).

Also, for the first time since the war began, more military personnel disapprove of their CINC’s handling of their fight (35/42), only half think want more troops sent, and a surprising 13% think there shouldn’t be one American soldier there at all. That being said, an overwhelming 75% say the military is already stretched too thin.

Third, where is the “patience” you always ask for when addressing the long nature of Iraq’s reconstruction with regard to Iran? Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners are on the brink of losing significant amounts of influence to the reformers as indicated by the election a few weeks ago. Is it really necessary to put more lives at risk to extradite a change that is already in the works and would be more successful if it were a genuinely internal Iranian movement not facilitated by Western interference?

And finally, are you comfortable with the US fighting alongside terrorist groups like the MKO/MEK (which is highly hated by Iranian citizens)? Are you comfortable with the fact that we would be using (and actually already are) the same group Saddam employed to crush Kurds after Gulf War I to destabilize south western Iran?

If so, you are quite the confusing mind. We condemn nations for supporting terror groups like Hezbollah but then turn around and support terror groups like Rajavi’s Cult.

Nothing would reverse the growing moderate movement in Iran like an American-led invasion. Every “collateral damage” death of an Iranian child or family would turn more of her citizens against us, not the mullahs. We cannot nation-build, as Iraq has proven. We would merely be playing into the hands of anti-American elements in the region by going to war with Iran.

HAHAHAHAHAHAA...nice joke about attacking Iran. You will need 1 million men to even think about it. and gues what, you have barely enough to subdue a country one third the size of Iran in population. Have fun thinking that airpower alone will defeat iran just like you did in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Ill make this prediction: The US at the urging of Neoconservatives who have convinced people that American interests are IDENTICAL to Israeli Interests will attack Iran and end up LOSING its dominance in the Middle East and Americans will end up doing to the Jews what Hitler did to them 60 years ago.

The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, famously said "One war at a time." Until we dispense with our Iraq "problem", we are in no position to do anything more than posture against Iran (and they know it). Of course we could always use the nucleur option and bring on Armegeddon.

Thrower,

We cannot allow Iran to destroy Israel!

Israel is our middle eastern friend, and pose no threats to anyone, so we must take decisive action swiftly to insure the safety of Israel, and ourselves included!!

Jeremiah

I have a solution that will solve everyone's problem. The neo-cons don't have to conduct their wars using the U.S. Military. The rich neo-cons with their endless billions of dollars can train and equip their own paramilitary force of millions of willing recruits. They can even call it "God's Holy Christian Army" or "Jesus's Heathen Domination Force." That way they can conduct any war they want without worrying about public support or international opinion. The neo-cons can conduct their wars without using the U.S.'s name, resources, or most importantly its servicemen. For once the neo-cons could spend their own resources fighting the wars they start. Seems a win-win for all.

Israel is currently quite capable of destroying Iran on its own if it feels its survival is on the line. Perhaps a threat from a country that is not bogged down in Iraq would be more plausible to Iran.

GTGrad is Sambo the Suicide Bomber in disguise. You're not fooling anyone but yourself...freak.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAA...nice joke about attacking Iran. You will need 1 million men to even think about it."

I can tell by his laugh and his moronic comments.

He even writes with an accent and he just can't post without doing the HAHA thing..what a freak.

Therefore he IS a compulsive liar.

Jeremiah

The Israelis have been victimized by the likes of Sambo the Suicide Bomber that sneak into Israel and light themselves up like a Black Cat in the name of Allah, Saddam, Nasrallah and Ya-sure-Arafatass for years, and as soon as Israel retaliates by invading Lebannon and CRUSHING, yes CRUSHING Hezbollah back to their shantys made-o-mud whilst hiding behind women and children, the loony left and Al Jizeera play it up as an Israeli defeat.

The problem is that the only ones that bought the "defeat" portrayal, was Hezbollah and their followers....kooks!

So to answer you..yes, the Israelis do pose a threat and so far, their enemies, who are all financially broke now that Saddam isn't around to cough up the $25k per Sambo, are concerned that the Israelis will take action against Iran and induce a 20 year set back for the League of Terrorist Nations.

Isn't it odd that you never hear about an Israeli suicide bomber?? So who's the problem here?

Jeremiah,

You are a christian neo conservative who allows his religious views to block his analysis of situations. There is no discussion with a person who thinks all people who are not christian are going to hell. I have nothing further to say to you.

Navyfag,

By the way you type and analyze things, i can tell you are white trash living in a modern world. You probably just learned how to use a computer last year. Now on to your analysis.....

THERE WAS NONE...all you do all the time is attack the posters personally. You offer NO detailed analysis on ANYTHING.

- Israel won the war right????? They gained NOTHING, Hezbollah still has its weapons, fighters and territory. Not to mention, No one can disarm them, Iran has replenished their weapons to the full...wow what a victory that was for Israel let me tell you. If that is victory, then lets all hope the US does that in Iraq.

- Israel take action against Iran??? How would they do that, just bomb them? I guess that would work very well, since they can really destroy Iran's capability to fight. Once again, AIRPOWER alone cannot destroy a nation's capability to fight. What makes you think that a handful of American planes with Stars of David on them will be any different.

- Israel doesn't have to have suicide bombers. They just drop bombs on civilians and claim to be fighting "terrorism". They do their killing by the dozen, while muslims resist by killing one by one.

Post something smart for once, don't make personal attacks you ignorant white trash.

Ummm GT?

Are you serious in your analysis? Do you really stand by the statement that "muslims resist by killing one by one"?

If you are saying that... what are you ON? Explain to me how a strapping a bomb onto your person and boarding a busy bus or going into a busy market will be "killing one by one"?

Further, Israel bends over backwards to avoid civilian casualties... as do the good guys... you know Western Civilization, and other real governments.

Those terrorists sure only kill one by one when they bomb innocent Iraqis. Or Atta sure killed one by one when he boarded a plane in 2001 right?

You must be joking right... or being glib. I pray it's glib.

So who's the problem here?

navydad,

Well, It was my perception that, Iran, had their sights set on Israel, I don't know, I suppose I was wrong.

But from what you've shown me, sounds like Iraq and Israel both, are the problem, Is that correct? Maybe you can help me here.

Jeremiah

There is no discussion with a person who thinks all people who are not christian are going to hell.

GT,

There is only one way to the Father, and that's through Jesus Christ!

Thus, you have Christianity!!

Jeremiah

Corpsman,

My preferred course of action vis a vis Iran is naval blockade (odd fact: Iran imports a majority of its gasoline) and aerial bombing - thus using the two US military arms thus far least employed in the War on Terrorism. A ground assault, if any, would be of a strictly limited character - we would not be going for regime change, per se, though our actions would likely bring one about.

That said, I also dispute the notion of an over-streched US military - we have more than half a million regular soldiers backed up by three quarters of a million reservists, and that doesn't count active and reserve Marines (whom I'd like out of Iraq for the very practical purpose of their being our heaviest quick strike force). With 130,000 troops in Iraq, we're talking slightly over ten percent. We are in no way, shape or form over-extended right now. We could, at a pinch, have a half million man expeditionary force in action six months from the word "go" without taking even one soldier from Iraq, Afghanistan or South Korea.

Our enemies aren't emboldened by an allegedly feeble US military, but by the domestic opposition which is doing precisely what the Islamists want them to do - weaken America's will to win and allow the enemy to win in American politics what they can never win on the battlefield. I call this "acting the part of traitor" - it doesn't mean that the whole so-called anti-war movement is traitor (though most of the leadership of same is), but it does mean that the rank and file are doing all that a traitor would do in service of enemy goals.

In the final analysis, it is fight now when Iran is weak, or fight later when they are stronger. We spent the 20th century waiting for another day to fight enemies, and we paid a massive blood price for our delay. We must strike evil as soon as we can, and we are in a position to strike at Iran today.

Listen folks

GTGRAD is in fact Sam and if you'll recall and if Mark will go back to some posts in early Dec, you'll all see that GT is Sam the suicide bomber and will unleash nothing but anti-American and anti-Israel rants....so don't waste your time trying to respond.

If you'll notice...he hasn't denied it, therefore he is a compulsive liar.

I for one will ignore him, no matter what fake name he uses.

Mark

In my post "January 4, 2007 11:24 PM"

I purposely posted items that I knew would inflame GT in order to expose him...and guess what, it wasn't to tough.

When he first posted as GT, he tried to keep a low profile, but he couldn't contain himself.

Need I say more?

Jeremiah

I for one am impressed with your love of God and America..in that order.

As a three time grandfather, I have a tendency to be a bit of a protectionist when our God and Country are attacked, either verbally or physically, it doesn't matter, I will defend to the death.

Now your question: "But from what you've shown me, sounds like Iraq and Israel both, are the problem, Is that correct? Maybe you can help me here."

Iraq was (past tense)...Israel has never been.

In a nut shell, in 1948, multiple Arab nations, including Lebanon, invaded Israel in an attempt to prevent them from becoming an established nation, on land that the Arabs felt belonged to them. The supposed indigenous people were the Palestinians. Well, in this invasion, Israel kicked the crap out of the five Arab nations, and since the Arabs couldn't defeat the Israeli's militarily, they resorted to terrorism, AKA Suicide Bombers.

Now, it goes back much further than 1948, but for present time purposes, this is far enough back to create an understanding of what, where and how things happened.

Additionlly, Saddam had paid families of any suicide bomber that would light themsleves off in Israel $10K and in 2002, he gave them a raise to $25k. There were at least 12 suicide attacks in Israel in 2002.

So, you can see how GTGrad AKA Sambo the Suicide Bomber would become defensive if anyone of us defends Israel and or attacks Iran, Hezbollah, Arafatars and other terrorists.

Get my drift?

Noonan,

"we have more than half a million regular soldiers backed up by three quarters of a million reservists, and that doesn't count active and reserve Marines"

Is the half million you are citing combat forces?

Or are they total personnel numbers which include those involved in administrative posts, requisition, supply, medical personel, recruiters, truck drivers, maintenance, and intelligence?

Could you link to official reports to clarify where that number originated from?

Thanks!

BTW Jeremiah

I grew up with a Rudd family in Southern California that owned Rudd's Christian Supplies...any connection?

I'll understand if you can't reply.

A great family back in the 60's.

Get my drift?

navydad,

I think I'm beginning to see now. We are the main focus of terrorist nations, because of our great strength, in wealth and military power, which of course, I think I knew pretty well all along.(no pun intended).

In other words, Iran is the danger, but we are the reason for that imminent danger.

So, It is now time to take sufficient and quick action, now that Iran has acquired nuclear capacity to do us tremendous harm, to stop them, before a catastrophe should occur.

On more question, before I go.

It is my hopes now that, since the Hussein regime is gone, that there will not be anymore of those Sambo's go into Israel, What is your analysis?

I grew up with a Rudd family in Southern California that owned Rudd's Christian Supplies...any connection?

Not sure, but I'll check on that. :)

Jeremiah

Wake up America, there's finally a President & Vice President in the Whitehouse who's got your back. They are my family's Wingmen.

Posted by: SheldonJacobs

With all due respect - are you serious? The two people you mentioned couldn't find their way out of a phone booth. Neither of those men have mine (our your) best interests at heart. They do not like you, they do not know you, they do not think about you. They only think (and care) about their political futures and legacy. Sir, I would rather have a squadron of Cub Scouts 'watching my back', than the two failures you are hanging your hopes on. Please tell me you were joking - please.

While I agree that other Middle Eastern countries are supplying Iraq's insurgency and civil war, I do not believe we are ready at this time to take on a third, fourth, or fifth front to the war.

I believe the way to fight Iran, Syria, and any other Middle Eastern country that is against us, is to hit them in the pocket... hard. How can we start to do this when we are gobbling up their oil? Switch the government oil subsidies to the fledgling ethanol/bio-diesel market's research, production, and infrastructure to plug the floodgate of oil money running out of this country, and siphon it back to Middle America's hard working farmers. Oil refinement jobs will turn into ethanol jobs, and the boost of money recirculating in our economy will help fund our anti-terror efforts.

You and I can help in this indirect fight as well. Take your large truck/suv off of the road as much as you can and pick up a hybrid. I drove our '06 Honda Civic Hybrid 760+ miles over the holidays on 15 gallons of gas making over 50 mpg. If you can't get a gas-sipper, start car-pooling or do what you can.

It is more difficult to wage a war when our suppliers (Venezuela, Middle East) are against us creating constant instability. I'd feel a lot more confident with home-grown fuel powering our Humvees, tanks, and civilian cars

This is definitely not a complete solution, but it could be an ace in the hole so to speak.