 |
 |
Posted on 03/10/2006 5:26:23 AM PST by Tolik
Hehehe. It could hang 130 as far as I'm concerned, but at least they don't hesitate to take care of terrorists in their possession and not put panties on their heads :)
|
|
The Iranian people won't fight to save the regime.
The regular army won't fight to save the regime.
The rich mullahs in gov't will flee.
The regime will begin to crumble as soon as they realize that the U.S. means business and is coming in after them.
The political reality is, while we wait, people are being killed and the American public is getting fed up. The public will force the President to leave Iraq. That's the reality of waiting.
I think you're wrong about not being able to make a sufficient case to the American people. The Iranian regime has threatened us sufficiently enough to make the case that their threats are an act war against us.
Therein lies our difference of opinion. The number of terrorists/insurgents is not constant or finite. It can increase or decrease depending upon the circumstances. Israel has been fighting terrorists for decades and over generations. Insurgencies are not won by body counts, but by convincing the general populace it is in their interest not to support the insurgents.
Terrorist/insurgent wars can also succeed as was the case in Ireland against the British, which resulted in the formation of the Irish Free State. Chairman Mao was also successful.
When I say "finite number," I'm assuming we don't do something stupid and bomb a bunch of civilians who might, otherwise be on our side. Without such an incident, yes, the number is pretty finite.
As for the Brits in Ireland, a better counterfactual would be if a British-supported IRISH government (not northern Ireland) was facing a rebellion, and if it commanded a majority of the Irish population. In that case, England would have won.
As for who supports whom, I spoke to this Iranian just last week, and he maintains that while the cities are anti-government (esp. the students), the countryside is overwhelmingly pro-Mullah.
It's difficult to find for a couple of reasons - first, because guerillas must attempt to hide casualties to create the illusion of victory, and second, because a profoundly hostile press sees the maintenance of this illusion as an expression of political power.
In fact, the entire idea of using Iraq as flypaper for international jihadists has proven very effective, and is in my opinion the critical weakness of the entire concept of jihad - they must fight under disadvantageous circumstances and the foot soldiers don't mind casualties. Unfortunately that's also a recipe for a protracted and disproportionately bloody conflict such as the one we see before us. The locals into which the guerillas blend take awhile to realize that the people ostensibly fighting the outsider are outsiders themselves without their interests at heart. This realization was only spottily achieved in Vietnam but is being achieved with astonishing success in Iraq.
In purely military terms the Iraq intervention itself has been an astonishing success - ground gained, objectives realized, and especially kill ratios. The fight, as in Vietnam, is in the political arena and the playing field is very slanted against success there. Bush will not be in office in 2009 but the current occupants of editorial boards will remain. These are not accountable to the voters, and only the market can correct them. And what I think we see is a struggle and a race between their ability to manipulate the market and the market's ability to manipulate them.
Likewise, the further down the jihadist ranks you go, you lose a) commitment (meaning more turncoats, delivering more information) and b) skill (de facto, the guys coming in late aren't as professional or skilled as those who were on the team at the beginning. Again, there is a certain inexorability of the math.
See "America's Victories" here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230211/qid=1139423812/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_18/104-7528812-1819936?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
"We coulda done it better" cry the democrats when the war is popular.
"We woulda never done this" the democrats cry when the war is not popular.
In 2004, Israeli Arab citizens made up about 19.5% of Israel's population. How do you consider them? I don't quite understand your point about the Iraqis. Whose presence are you referring to? Us?
When I say "finite number," I'm assuming we don't do something stupid and bomb a bunch of civilians who might, otherwise be on our side. Without such an incident, yes, the number is pretty finite.
Potential terrorists are being born every day in places like Palestine, Iran, Chechnya, etc.
As for the Brits in Ireland, a better counterfactual would be if a British-supported IRISH government (not northern Ireland) was facing a rebellion, and if it commanded a majority of the Irish population. In that case, England would have won.
No, it depends on what that IRISH government represented, how big a majority it commanded, and whether that majority had the same committment and intensity of the minority. If it was a puppet government like the Soviet-supported AFGHAN government in the 1980s, there would still be an insurgency and the IRISH PEOPLE would have triumphed.
Remember, only one-third of the people supported the American Revolution.
With Iraq, I'm saying a majority (and likely a large majority) support us there. I'm not sure the same was true of the Arabs in Israel. Some, but I don't know how many.
"there is no real evidence that the American public sees Iran as a threat to take out at this moment."
That's why the President needs to spell out to them exactly what the regime has threatened. When he's finished with the laundry list of threats they've made, including suicide bombers and explained what they've already done and continue to do every day to our troops and the Iraqi people and their own people, he'll have made the case.
I speak with and get news from Iranians too. The countryside is not overwhelmingly pro-mullah. It is more pro-mullah than the cities for sure (as the people are less educated and less sophisticated) But not overwhelmingly. They are poor and suffering the affects of a do-nothing regime too.
Meanwhile if the anti-government factions are one-tenth as powerful as you think, we won't have to do much.
"Meanwhile if the anti-government factions are one-tenth as powerful as you think, we won't have to do much."
The numbers are certainly there. The power they need help with.
But I think you're right about "we won't have to do much". That's why I don't think his taking a stand of "get out or we're coming in" would result in a lengthy confrontation. Most of the mullahs and people with power would flee. (or try to)
Victor Davis Hanson is a Democrat.
VDH's Private Papers:Democratic Implosion
Democratic Implosion Can the party of the people be saved from itself? by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online. The idea that we are going to win this ...
www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120905.html
"Victor Davis Hanson is a Democrat."
http://victorhanson.com/articles/dowd082705.html
author archives books calendar home
Printer Friendly
August 28, 2005
America’s Historian in Chief
by Alan W. Dowd
American Legion Magazine
This interview with Victor Davis Hanson by Alan Dowd of the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research was conducted on April 5, 2005 in Indianapolis, Indiana, and published in the September 2005 issue of the American Legion.
Victor Davis Hanson emerged from the relative obscurity of his academic post at Fresno State University on September 11, 2001, to become something akin to America’s “Historian-in-Chief.” Spurred by a legion of eager editors, Hanson has translated his expertise in classical military history to the war on terror. The result is some 300 essays (and counting) and a literal army of devotees. He notes with pride that he receives 10 to 20 supportive emails each week from U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His primary platform for explaining this first war of the 21st century has been a decidedly modern mode of communication — the World Wide Web. With the dependability of Old Faithful, Hanson’s weekly commentaries have poured forth from the web-based daily of National Review, one of the forbears of the modern conservative movement. But Hanson reminds those who dismiss him as a Republican shill that he’s a registered Democrat. Underscoring the broad appeal of Hanson’s perspective, his essays on war have appeared in The New Republic, The New York Times, The American Legion, The Wall Street Journal, and City Journal.
Victor Davis Hanson knows not of what he speaks.
The U.S. under President Bush used force to dethrone the Taliban from Afghanistan, Hussein from Iraq, and Charles Taylor from Liberia's Presidential Palace.
This use of force gave so much credibility to American foreign policy that Syria surrendered without a shot being fired; withdrawing its military from its illegal occupation of Lebanon.
Likewise, this use of force compelled Libya's Khadafy to surrender his extensive WMD program.
Haiti just underwent a "revolution" as well, though in no official part due to the U.S.
No doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.