Attack on US military Base Kills 2 wounds 17;
Running Battles leave Capital's Streets Deserted;
Pentagon Thinks Big concerning attack on Iran
In making continency plans for war against Iran, the Pentagon is thinking big. Not just surgical strikes on the civilian nuclear energy program, but hitting virtually everything of importance in the country. The Air Force kept telling us they could bomb Vietnam into submission. They couldn't. Then it was shock and awe in Iraq. Didn't work. Just remember, it is always the Army that has to come in and clean up the mess.
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that numerous running gun battles and mortar strikes were witnessed in Baghdad on Monday as US and Iraqi forces clashed with guerrilla fighters. The mounting death toll of the past few days caused the government of Nuri al-Maliki to reapportion troops, assigning some urgently to "hot areas" as opposed to areas of "routine operations." Sweeps also resulted in numerous arrests, but a leader of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front maintained that some 30 young men arrested on Monday were innocent. As a result of the street battles, Baghdadis rushed to their homes for fear of a further deterioration in the security situation, leaving the capital looking like a ghost town.
Sunni Arab guerrillas killed 6 US GIs on Sunday and Monday in Iraq. They killed two of them Monday with a car bomb and mortar attack on a newly set up US base at Tarmiya north of Baghdad, also wounding 17.
Reuters reports a minibus bombing in Baghad, another at Zaafraniya, and the discovery of 8 bodies in Mosul. Also two bombings in Ramadi. McClatchy reports the discovery of 20 bodies in Baghdad and other violence.
The explosion of a fuel tanker near Taji north of Baghdad killed 5 persons and sent 138 persons to the hospital from inhaling the fumes. Those affected were having trouble breathing and were vomiting.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/20/2007 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
I agree with your note that the claims for airpower are always overblown, but instead of Just remember, it is always the Army that has to come in and clean up the mess, it would be more accurate to say that the Army "has to come in and complete the disaster."
The US did not invade Serbia after obliterating its strategic infrastructure and miltary facilities.
The 'strategy' seems to be one of vengeance, rather than for positive, calculated efect. It is almost certain to turn Iran's public against the US, and more likely to accelerate Iran's efforts to weaponize its nuclear program. It will strengthen the position of the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad.
It will also compound the strategic failure facing the US. It will not reduce the price oil, increase it's preferential availability to the US, replace the government of Iran, or lessen the fighting in Iraq. It may serve as an object lesson to other governments in the region and worldwide. It will benefit Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Israel may come closer to becoming the one-eyed king in the land of the blind.
But the US can certainly squander its resources in order to diminish its global position.
To bomb Iran into non-submission is a poor strategy. More detrius from the inveterate Dougie Feith? Perhaps the neolithic types should consider what it would take to actually win one of these wars. Sadly, No! offers some insight. http://sadlyno.com/archives/5099.html
I saw this BBC report yesterday as well and it seemed to largely verify everything Seymour Hersh had reported a while back...
The troubling aspect of this plan of attack is that it would involve strikes on all kinds of air defense and tracking/coordination facilities, in addition to other military sites and the nuclear sites...
Also, the 'bunker busters' they are talking about may contain depleted uranium, or may be small 'tactical' nuclear weapons (if Rummy's plans to build them ever got off the ground - Congress did not approve funds for that arsenal as far as I know)...
Even if we calculate only one fatality per strikes, for the lonely night watchman, we are still talking of hundreds of deaths from these hundreds of strikes on Iranian targets... And, of course, some of these targets are probably manned 24/7...
But the overall GWOT is going so badly that an attack on Iran will be catastrophic, as in it will raise the specter of US fighting off not only a Salafist but also a Shiite backlash across the world...
Already, Thailand and Somalia have shown to be moving in the wrong direction as far as the level of violence is concerned... And then there was the NY Times report this Sunday noting how the Al Qaeda have grown and recovered in Pakistan... Details of that are discussed on my blog.
It boggles the mind how LeMays strategic bombing doctrine still reigns in the Air Force wing of the Pentagon after all this year of unremitting failure.
Iran is not Saddam and they have a real capacity to hurt us, not only with ship missles, but abroad and =here through their network of agents. And what will the army bogged down in Iraq think of all thisÉ
I feel like Bill Murray living through Ground Hogs day, but I bet that when they pull this one there will be repercussions, not only impeachment but a fundamental reform of the military. You get the sense the generals are not going to swallow too much more of this crap. We need a Marcus Aurelius to reinvigorate these decrepit institutions.
On the point about bombing Iran into the Stone Age. Isn't that what Israel tried this summer vs. Lebanon? just another point to add to the few you listed...
"the Pentagon is thinking big. Not just surgical strikes on the civilian nuclear energy program, but hitting virtually everything of importance in the country."
Seems to me that Iran has plenty of ground to launch a preemptive attack against the US. Certainly they can make a WMD claim stick seeing how we have thousands of nukes , "plans" to make em better, and a real urge to use them.
I don't think Iran could muster up a very large "coalition of the willing", mainly because in the scheme of thing they are in that group of countries that is ordained to suffer punishment rather than meat it out. (Iraq, Vietnam, Greneda and Panama were in that group, Russia and China were not.)
I find it unsettling that given the daily horror show in Iraq, and the virtual demolishing of that country, the talk about raining death and destruction on Iran is much more about its inevitability, political consequences, oil prices, congressional timidity, nukes or no nukes etc.
Shouldn't the mere notion of killing and maiming men, women, and children and destroying their society be enough to disuade us from even thinking about attacking Iran. Hasn't the bloodletting in Iraq convinced anyone that war is a monstrocity and those who start them are monsters.
Post a Comment
<< Home