Sunday Reading
Don't miss Barney Rubin's long and personal meditation in the Boston Review on his involvement in Afghanistan diplomacy over the past decades. The depth of that involvement in recent years makes all the more poignant his growing suspicion that the situation is past the point where Obama's 30,000 extra US troops are going to make the difference.
Tomdispatch.com has two must-see entires. One is Tony Karon's essay on "Obama's Gaza Opportunity." The other is an online excerpt from the graphic novel of "Waltz with Bashir," based on the Israeli animated feature film, by Ari Follman, teating the Sabra and Shatila episode during the 1982 Israel-Lebanon War.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/25/2009 12:09:00 AM
|
Facebook
4 Comments:
We will find out within weeks whether or not Obama is going for business as usual with Israel.
But he will have to choose between Israel and the Arabs. The old Israel+moderates vs. extermists is well and truly over.
Read the article by Prince Turki al-Faisal, ex Saudi intelligence supremo, in the Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b122b6-e8c0-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Mubarak of Egypt is still holding out, but he is in his eighties and struggling to stay in power. The Muslim Brotherhood, close to Hamas, have grown enormously in stature as a result of the Gaza assault. If the US is in any way serious about democracy, the MB will be in power in a flash.
The Americans do not call the shots but can show their ugliness by supporting the Israeli savages.
I think the 30,000 troops are heading to Afghanistan for an attack on Iran.
If the 30,000 were to attack Iran, they would quickly be 30,000 dead troops.
The only time in post-1783 US history the US faced ground forces somewhat equal to its own on its own was during the Korean War when MacArthur foolishly enticed China to intervene on North Korea's side, and it proceded to whip US troops. WW2 German forces were NOT equal to US forces--their equipment was often superior, but their numbers were not, nor were they faced by US troops alone. For a brief time during the Battle of the Pacific, early 1942, US and Japanese forces were close to equal as proven by Guadalcanal.
The point is that the USA has seldom faced an equal or superior on the battlefield, and when it has the results are one win and one loss. Since the loss, it has made it a point to attack forces greatly inferior to it--a point any attack on Iran would negate. There's a reason why Reagan placed the shortrange nuclear tipped Pershing II Missiles in Europe--It was acknowledged that NATO was incapable of stopping the sort of multiple arms invasion anticipated by Soviet forces.
Re werkshop's 'Afghanistan surge may attack Iran' thesis:
I have relatives who probably wish your fears are valid. But Team W is out, and a large ground op into Iran was never likely. Still, consider the atmosphere:
Two prolonged US driven wars on Iran's longest land borders. Powerful nuclear armed carrier fleets threatening blockade or air strike from the Gulf and Indian Ocean. Factor in USAF wings in Turkey and Diego Garcia. And US support for two Israeli wars on Iranian proxies, Hez and Hamas.
The huge increase this decade of heroin, coming into Iran from Afghanistan, amounts to more than containment pressure. The bribes, armed smugglers and addiction penetrates across the border sowing durable chaos in Persia.
Obama advisors like Emmanuel and Clinton may encourage an increase in spec-ops teams tasked against Iranian interests in Afghanistan. But Rubin's article, and even Gen. McKiernan say that our Taliban war really is going badly. Obama's stated focus is on Pashtunistan. That's where scarce troops are being retasked from Iraq duty, imho.
David Sanger is also saying Afghan-Pakistan is likely to be Obama's war. But will we get sucked into Nuclear Israel's attack on Iran, under Netanyahu? That's my fear.
Post a Comment
<< Home