RogerL
08-30-2004, 02:00 AM
How do you feel about a war on 3 simultaneous fronts materializing within the next year? B/c it is getting more and more likely with the current administration's mindset & actual war planning (Iran) taking place right now. Fighting on multiple fronts is not usually a good idea, but sometimes it's unavoidable. The Bush Administration has brought in a number of allies in Afghanistan and have helped to train soldiers in Afghanistan to take the burden while we are occupied elsewhere. The number of troops we have there is actually rather low. When needed, our forces go in with air support and special forces, though the bulk of the fighting is done by Afghan troops.
As for Iran, you must be reading something I haven't seen. War planning on Iran? You may be right since the Pentagon plans for every theater, though most never go into effect, but I've read nothing public on any plans to go to war in Iran. And I read and watch the news voraciously.
My opinion doesn't really matter a hill of beans since I'm no military expert, but that won't stop me from offering one. ;)
Iran is a problem. So is Syria. I'm divided as to which is the worse threat. Iran and Syria are both actively working to topple the Allawi government. Syria is probably the host of the missing Iraqi WMD stockpiles according to the ISG and UNMOVIC. Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Syria may be, but there's no evidence of that.
Opening multiple fronts is always worrisome, but not always a bad thing. In World War II, we voluntarily opened a second front against the Germans, though many in the US wanted us to concentrate on the country that actually attacked us. Yet we knew that the UK and other European allies couldn't hold out for long. In current times, if our allies in the region need the help, we will offer it (e.g. Israel, Iraq).
Iran getting nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Israel will not allow it. Neither will we. WHEN the pathetic policy we are following at the behest of France and Germany for negotiating with Iran fails, we may be faced with military intervention.
At the moment, Iran is safe from military intervention. The US is overextended and cannot venture into Iran with sufficient strength to ensure victory. We would have to stabilize Iraq first before we can use our troops elsewhere.
Another option, which may already be in progress, is covert destabilization of the Iranian government. I have no idea if this is happening, but it could very well be going on since the Iranian people are pro-American and may help as a fifth column.
The thing I fear most is that Democrats have severely damaged President Bush's policy of pre-emption. Relentless attacks for the last two years have damaged that policy in the eyes of the public, completely ignoring long tradition that politics stops at the water's edge. I'm afraid whoever is president will not have the will to exercise that policy if the need arises.
As for Iran, you must be reading something I haven't seen. War planning on Iran? You may be right since the Pentagon plans for every theater, though most never go into effect, but I've read nothing public on any plans to go to war in Iran. And I read and watch the news voraciously.
My opinion doesn't really matter a hill of beans since I'm no military expert, but that won't stop me from offering one. ;)
Iran is a problem. So is Syria. I'm divided as to which is the worse threat. Iran and Syria are both actively working to topple the Allawi government. Syria is probably the host of the missing Iraqi WMD stockpiles according to the ISG and UNMOVIC. Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Syria may be, but there's no evidence of that.
Opening multiple fronts is always worrisome, but not always a bad thing. In World War II, we voluntarily opened a second front against the Germans, though many in the US wanted us to concentrate on the country that actually attacked us. Yet we knew that the UK and other European allies couldn't hold out for long. In current times, if our allies in the region need the help, we will offer it (e.g. Israel, Iraq).
Iran getting nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Israel will not allow it. Neither will we. WHEN the pathetic policy we are following at the behest of France and Germany for negotiating with Iran fails, we may be faced with military intervention.
At the moment, Iran is safe from military intervention. The US is overextended and cannot venture into Iran with sufficient strength to ensure victory. We would have to stabilize Iraq first before we can use our troops elsewhere.
Another option, which may already be in progress, is covert destabilization of the Iranian government. I have no idea if this is happening, but it could very well be going on since the Iranian people are pro-American and may help as a fifth column.
The thing I fear most is that Democrats have severely damaged President Bush's policy of pre-emption. Relentless attacks for the last two years have damaged that policy in the eyes of the public, completely ignoring long tradition that politics stops at the water's edge. I'm afraid whoever is president will not have the will to exercise that policy if the need arises.