…
OT, I know, but two links from last night re US attacking Iran which deserve a mention today, imo.

dkos

“We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime“
…

And from the TimesUK

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
…
“They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

I recall near the end of the Clinton administration the peace talks between Israel and Yasser Arafat of the PLO. When they collapsed I immediately felt we were at war. I wondered exactly who would be our enemies and how would we punish the Palestinians for not bargaining in good faith and for (apparently) leading us on and on for years to believe we might reach an agreement with them, when in reality they just wanted to use us while they continued to attack Israel.

Well, Hillary Clinton claims to have been something like a co-president during that time so I have to wonder whether she could tell us if we did in fact go to war at that moment. Did it begin at that time and not, as most people believe, after 9/11/01? Was she involved in that decision? What exactly would determine victory if it is a war against all of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East? And, if it truly is a very wide-ranging war against many countries, is she in favor of destroying Syria, Lebanon, Iran and perhaps others? Are we really at war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was assisting the widows of suicide bombers who died attacking Israel?

When did it begin and where does it end?

Right now it’s still Doolittle (R Calif. 4), but Charlie Brown’s campaign is in full swing, and (fingers crossed) I truly think Charlie’s got a good shot at the seat.

If I weren’t an atheist, I’d consider praying for Charlie’s success, but instead I’m going to send his campaign some $. After all, money talks and nothing fails like prayer.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Maybe they could give this some snappy title like “Shock and Awe”.

I have written on this several times. First, a massive aerial campaign would not last 3 days.

Think of the first Gulf War. The bombing campaign began on January 17, 1991 and the ground war did not start until February 24, 1991. The objective of this campaign was not to destroy Iraq’s military but to soften it up. Iraq’s forces at the time were highly concentrated in and near Kuwait. Also take into account that Iraq was a country of about 25 million then vs. Iran’s 68 million now and that Iraq is 169,285 sq. miles in size vs. Iran’s 636,300 sq. miles.

The US Navy will not be able to guarantee the safety the safety of shipping using the Straits of Hormuz or in the Persian Gulf. Insurance writers will not insure vessels, probably not even at astronomical rates. Tankers will not move. The oil will not flow. Oil markets know this. Upon the first attack on Iran oil will spike. If the attack is a large one, oil prices will go at least to the $120/bbl level and could easily double in price to around $150/bbl. Can you say worldwide recession?

An attack on Iran would greatly complicate our situation in Iraq. It could turn the majority Shia definitively against us. Attacks against US troops could increase significantly and our supply lines through the Shia South could be cut to pieces.

A 3 day attack does not take into account how long the Iranian response. That could last considerably longer, as in years. Hezbollah could strike out at Israel. Israel would strike back at Lebanon which would probably destroy the current Lebanese government and could also plunge Lebanon back into civil war. Israel might also attack Syria which would only further serve to turn an attack on Iran into a regional war.

Iran could also increase attacks in Afghanistan and destabilize an already shaky government.

While the Iranians are Shia, the wider Moslem world would likely see this as yet another attack on it. This could increase attacks on US and Western interests from North Africa to Indonesia and the Philippines.

And, of course, this would be a boon to international terrorism.

Not to mention the further alienation of our closest allies. It would be rejected by the Europeans. The Japanese will not thank us if oil prices go through the roof. The Chinese will be angered by our undermining their economic development. And the Russians (who still have all those nukes and ICBMs to carry them) will go further into Cold War mode.

Have I forgot some things? Probably but I think you get the picture. Do I think that given all this Bush and Cheney would still do it? You bet.

I agree that this is one brilliant response by Tim Walz – beautifully written and spot-on. I hope it gets read far and wide in Minnesota.

dipper – if you’re using a Mac, hold down the SHIFT key and click the REFRESH icon in the toolbar.

I’m not using a Mac, but it worked. Thanks so much!

“Tactically, this is exactly what was needed, an immediate, hard-hitting, take the fight to their doorstep response.”

That’s the ticket. And this sort of thing needs to be done over and over on a whole range of issues. The D team should always be on the lookout for opportunities to step up to the podium and fire away.

As well as also learning how to take the OFFENSIVE. Notice the coming of the Iraq report. D teamers say ‘we want to wait to hear the report”, etc. D teamers want to appear to be fair and reasonable.

Well, SCREW fair and reasonable. By waiting for the report, my D team automatically puts itself in a DEFENSIVE position. The best the D team can only then do is COUNTER-attack. That’s not good enough for me.

Solution? D team leaders should ALREADY have a press conference ready for Tuesday A.M. They announce ALL the ways the Surge has failed. Hit the R team over the head with it. Let the R TEAM then whine and cry about how “unfair” the D team is. Let the R team back-peddle and try to defend. THIS is how you attack!

Damn it, do my D teamers even understand how to take the Offensive? Do they even understand how to grab, take, and seize the initiative?

Sigh. I guess we already know the answer.

Ghostman

Ghostman: THANK YOU. Yes this is what we need to do.

This is the kind of thing that Oilfieldguy was always saying too. Anybody seen him around lately?