Gulf's New Ground Zero
April 8, 2007 9:08 AM Subscribe
Gulf's New Ground Zero. A busy Iranian port will be a crucial nerve centre if the long-threatened US attack comes.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
Panic? I don't think it's panic. Anyone who doesn't think Bush will at least try to invade Iran (barring some serious obsequiousness on the part of the Iranian government) hasn't been paying attention for the last six years.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:00 AM on April 8, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:00 AM on April 8, 2007
Invade Iran with what? There aren't enough troops in Iraq to deal with Iraq, let alone Iran.
posted by WPW at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2007
posted by WPW at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2007
The point is that you're just contributing to the panic over the impending attack. I could just as easily say, "If terrorists were to attack the US in 2007, Washington, DC is the most likely target. Local residents [link to my weblog here] have believed ever since 2001 that a follow-up attack is overdue. This time, it may be nuclear."
It's fear mongering. Unnecessary fear mongering. Anyone can point at an area likely to be caught up in turmoil, on any continent, and stir the pot.
The question is, why do you need to? You're not stopping the war, you're not changing public opinion, and even the people described in the article don't seem to care. What is the point here?
posted by avriette at 12:00 PM on April 8, 2007
It's fear mongering. Unnecessary fear mongering. Anyone can point at an area likely to be caught up in turmoil, on any continent, and stir the pot.
The question is, why do you need to? You're not stopping the war, you're not changing public opinion, and even the people described in the article don't seem to care. What is the point here?
posted by avriette at 12:00 PM on April 8, 2007
But the Navy and Airforce has legions of fighter bombers and lots of bombs and missiles.
and perhaps one day we might realize that those are just about useless when it comes to persuading an enemy to giving up a course of action ... and certainly won't result in our having control of the ground, which is the only way we can be certain we have control of anything
posted by pyramid termite at 12:23 PM on April 8, 2007
and perhaps one day we might realize that those are just about useless when it comes to persuading an enemy to giving up a course of action ... and certainly won't result in our having control of the ground, which is the only way we can be certain we have control of anything
posted by pyramid termite at 12:23 PM on April 8, 2007
Pentagon to look at reformulating its doctrine of air superiority
Notgunnahappen given ~3/5ths of the M/I complex is dedicated to developing, deploying, and employing this capability.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:10 PM on April 8, 2007
Notgunnahappen given ~3/5ths of the M/I complex is dedicated to developing, deploying, and employing this capability.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:10 PM on April 8, 2007
“Invade Iran with what?”
Additionaly - invade Iran with what objective?
(I’m fairly hawkish when there’s a need. Of course, that’s like saying, I’m pretty combative when someone punches me in the face.)
Funny how the discourse is the legitimacy of ‘war’ not the existance of an objective.
Although that’s been shouted down in Iraq as well.
“What the hell are we doing there?”“Winning”
“No, why are we in Iraq now?”
“We can’t just leave”
“No, what’s the objective in Iraq”
“To win.”
“No, no - what are we doing there.”“We’re winning the war.”
Inevitably someone challenges that - and really, who cares? Even if we’re ‘losing’ - if the objective is to ‘win’, that’s tautology.
At some point the concept that a war is fought to achieve an objective is lost. The objective - in Iraq in particular - has been fuzzy and subjective since the WMD thing was lost and the argument has become whether we can ‘win.’ Well what the hell does that mean? I can beat the crap out of my wife (if she’s not armed) does that then mean I ‘win’? I can beat the crap out of someone who can’t defend themselves well, if I continue to do so, that doesn’t mean I’m getting anything tangible done.
Same deal here - what’s the objective? What is it we want Iran to do?
If we want to overthrow their government that isn’t a problem, a good well funded grey op could do that. Hell, we’re right next door anyway.
Any number of strategic objectives could be accomplished the same way.
Therefore the objective must be something other than what the political surface is showing.
That doesn’t mean that invalidates this as a tactical objective. But it’s tough to predict what’s coming, as a general principle, absent knowlege of the strategy.
The silkworm missile site alone - not to mention cruise missle production - makes it a tactical objective. But being it’s an oil drumhead for heavy crude oil, not to mention the big refinery there - it’s a huge strategic objective for just about anything. I mean, you have to have a stranglehold on an enemy’s energy supplies even if the idea is not to monopolize oil production.
But again - why? Invade to what end?
Looking at the latest political discourse, apparently ‘they hate us’ and/or ‘they’re bad guys’ substitutes for strategic thought, not to mention pre-emptive legitimacy.
‘Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.’ - sun tzu
posted by Smedleyman at 10:50 AM on April 9, 2007
Additionaly - invade Iran with what objective?
(I’m fairly hawkish when there’s a need. Of course, that’s like saying, I’m pretty combative when someone punches me in the face.)
Funny how the discourse is the legitimacy of ‘war’ not the existance of an objective.
Although that’s been shouted down in Iraq as well.
“What the hell are we doing there?”“Winning”
“No, why are we in Iraq now?”
“We can’t just leave”
“No, what’s the objective in Iraq”
“To win.”
“No, no - what are we doing there.”“We’re winning the war.”
Inevitably someone challenges that - and really, who cares? Even if we’re ‘losing’ - if the objective is to ‘win’, that’s tautology.
At some point the concept that a war is fought to achieve an objective is lost. The objective - in Iraq in particular - has been fuzzy and subjective since the WMD thing was lost and the argument has become whether we can ‘win.’ Well what the hell does that mean? I can beat the crap out of my wife (if she’s not armed) does that then mean I ‘win’? I can beat the crap out of someone who can’t defend themselves well, if I continue to do so, that doesn’t mean I’m getting anything tangible done.
Same deal here - what’s the objective? What is it we want Iran to do?
If we want to overthrow their government that isn’t a problem, a good well funded grey op could do that. Hell, we’re right next door anyway.
Any number of strategic objectives could be accomplished the same way.
Therefore the objective must be something other than what the political surface is showing.
That doesn’t mean that invalidates this as a tactical objective. But it’s tough to predict what’s coming, as a general principle, absent knowlege of the strategy.
The silkworm missile site alone - not to mention cruise missle production - makes it a tactical objective. But being it’s an oil drumhead for heavy crude oil, not to mention the big refinery there - it’s a huge strategic objective for just about anything. I mean, you have to have a stranglehold on an enemy’s energy supplies even if the idea is not to monopolize oil production.
But again - why? Invade to what end?
Looking at the latest political discourse, apparently ‘they hate us’ and/or ‘they’re bad guys’ substitutes for strategic thought, not to mention pre-emptive legitimacy.
‘Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.’ - sun tzu
posted by Smedleyman at 10:50 AM on April 9, 2007
« Older Amnesty International - Cruel and Inhuman:... | Bless you, Georgia O'Keefe Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by quonsar at 10:33 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]