Iran

[Undertoad]

This should be reported by the main stream media

It's a mixed bag... I listened to a liberal Iranian expat with friends and family in the nation, who said:

A) When Soleimani is on a "peace mission", it's just an extension of war elsewhere. If it makes sense to make allies in war, then that will happen. The name of the "Quds" force, in Arabic, is "Jerusalem", meaning that is their end goal.

B) Iraq's government is basically an Iranian puppet now, as Iranian forces move into areas and literally tell people who to vote for.

C) Trump including cultural targets was a huge mis-step, because it gave the cultural nationalists ("Make Persia Great Again") a connection with the religious nationalists ("Keep the Shia Crescent Shia And Expand It"), when they are not brothers in arms. The religious nationalists could basically say, "See, they don't just intend to kill us and change the government, they want to destroy everything."

~ Note, that's just one Iranian expat's opinion ~

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Luce

Everything we have done in that part of the world in the last 16 years has been a waste of money and the lives of our soldiers. Nothing worthwhile was accomplished, merely the transfer of money from the American treasury to no-bid contractors.

The people that died over there died for nothing.

The taxes you and I paid into the whole mess were wasted.

So, yes. You are correct in that regard.

Obviously.

Stalemate is a failed strategy.

Yet, it remains the government's mantra because the electorate, by and large, doesn't have the stomach for doing what it takes to win.

They will perpetually pay for that.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Obviously.

Stalemate is a failed strategy.

Yet, it remains the government's mantra because the electorate, by and large, doesn't have the stomach for doing what it takes to win.

They will perpetually pay for that.

Before you can even contemplating "winning", you have to have some sort of victory condition established.

We neglected that bit. There was no goalpost. There still isn't.

And deciding that we'll just carpet bomb the crap out of people or whatever it is we need "the stomach" for, won't help unless and until there is something resembling an objective.

[sexobon]

When you're going along tit-for-tat, there's no need for any of that. Stalemate is its own objective. Until there's a desire and the will power to do something more, establishing victory conditions, goalposts and objectives are an exercise in futility. The government recognizes that the electorate lacks the intestinal fortitude to back it even if it produced those things.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I listened to a liberal Iranian expat with friends and family in the nation, who said:

Arguing liberal or conservative exposes an extremist. Those people know only from their emotions (political biases). Moderates learn facts long before having an opinion. Those are the patriotic Americans - who also saw that Saddam clearly did not have WMDs. A perfect example of what happens when extremists forget to first learn facts.

The world is only about moderates verses extremists. The informed verses the brainwashed. Liberal vs Conservative only obfuscates the real issue.

Three network newsmen were posted as three monkeys - see nothing; hear nothing; say nothing. Turns out those newsmen were the honest ones. Extremists hate to hear facts - truth. 'Hate' being the identifying characteristic. All three network newsmen were smart enough to demonstrate facts - and not automatically believe Saddam had WMDs. They were moderates. And therefore were correct. Extremists hate moderates - their political bias.

Saddam had WMDs only because extremists knew it must be true. Their political biases told them what to believe. So we massacred 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. That is also a fact. No honest person can deny that today. Unfortunately, wacko extremists do not apologize for their obvious mistake. That is contempt for the American serviceman - and 16 years of useless and now unwinnable war.

George Jr even admitted that Saddam did not have those WMD. And still many extremists insisted he must. Entrenched biases are that deep. Extremists cannot admit to any fact that contradicts their emotional biases.

Soleimani repeatedly was a best chance for America to reach a peaceful accord with Iran. On numerous occasions, he offered Americans assistance that, as it turns out, was necessary. He would have been extremely helpful. So a wacko extremist killed him on a kneejerk decision - not one fact. Therefore entrenching extremists in the Iranian government. Making war more likely. Clearly making things worse. Even 176 dead people on a 737 are more fallout of Trump's hate. Only moderates - who learn facts before making conclusions - can see that.

Soleimani was murdered because Trump only does what his ego says is necessary to be reelected. It works for extremist supporters - who cannot be bothered to first learn the facts.

Soleimani was only an evil enemy when extremists invent enemies - to rally their less intelligent supporters. Fortunately, Iran deflated tensions. Averted war.

A dumb Trump was so wacko that America was only ten minutes away from an all out attack on Iran. The planes were loaded, tasked, and in the air when, at the last minute, somebody intelligent finally got them stopped. Same asshole also murdered Soleimani - in direct violation of international law and clearly in violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Only the most wacko extremists would say all that is good.

He can murder someone on Fifth Ave. And wacko extremist Fox News disciples will still vote for him. Trump knows who extremists are and what is acceptable to them - such as Guantanamo.

B) Iraq's government is basically an Iranian puppet now

Certainly closer. But honest news services also note a very strong Iraqi desire to get Iranian influence removed. Especially among Iraqi Shia. Cited was one obvious and politically powerful example: Sadr.

Iraqi was quite happy playing American verses Iraq. To get what they wanted from that game. If the Iraqi Parliament gets what it now wants, that game and its benefits are over. Just another example of how Trump makes things worse. Just another example of him further isolating and therefore ethnic cleansing the Kurds.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Luce

Before you can even contemplating "winning", you have to have some sort of victory condition established.

Exactly. In order to justify war, three things must exist. These were repeatedly listed here in the Cellar even before George Jr started the Mission Accomplished war. That long ago.

First, a strategic objective must exist. WWII was won because the strategic objective was clear, bluntly stated, and hostilities did not end until that objective was achieved: unconditional surrender.

Second, there must be a smoking gun. That smoking gun is surprisingly unknown to many if not most Americans today - Pearl Harbor.

Third, plans for the peace must exist well before hostilities end.

Vietnam. None existed. So that war was lost and well known as lost by 1966.

Mission Accomplished had no strategic objective. Those WMDs were total fiction - all US intelligence agencies could not find any. They were invented by Cheney, et al.

Second, there was no smoking gun. Nothing (but a lie) justified Mission Accomplished.

Third, there was no planning for the peace - no phase four planning - no after action orders. Only CPA orders 1 and 2 that resulted in 5000 dead American servicemen.

So yes, a strategic objective, et al must be clearly defined even before the very first attack. Desire only disappears when these three critical factors do not exist. Without them, victory cannot happen.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

… First, a strategic objective must exist. WWII was won because the strategic objective was clear, bluntly stated, and hostilities did not end until that objective was achieved: unconditional surrender.

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

Domestication: fat, happy, and stupid; 'don't rock the boat!'; go along to get along; Aesop's dog (the leash only chafes a little).

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The government recognizes that the electorate lacks the intestinal fortitude to back it even if it produced those things.

Some administrations know their supporters are so uneducated as to, for example, automatically believe Saddam had WMDs - when facts clearly said otherwise.

"War .... what is it good for. Absolutely nothing." About 1 million sang that as one in Woodstock. Back then, rock and roll stations played five minutes of news every hour. But the informed Americans could not even vote.

Another hundred thousand clearly stated same in Washington. And still extremists belittled the most patriotic people - the informed.

One would think we learned from that experience. And yet the same lies justified Mission Accomplished. Another war that clearly could not be won due to an administration that lied. And three necessary requirements all were violated. So they massacred another 5000 American servicemen for no purpose.

So many Americans did not do their jobs as citizens - learn facts well demonstrated in history.

Some wars are justified. And were won because all three critical factors were met - ie Desert Storm.

So one would think Americans got educated by history and not by wacko extremist talk show hosts. Not by Fox News (that constantly lied about Mission Accomplished). Not by Tweets or Facebook.

How many patriotic Americans exist? Well, how many are extremely angry that a president (dumber than George Jr) was only ten minutes away from 'Pearl Harboring' Iran. All over a downed spy drone. Patriotic Americans should still be fully aware, extremely angry, and asking who saved America - by restoring sanity to that administration with only minutes to spare.

This dumb president even left a NATO Summit early because so many other leaders mocked him. Rightly so. He cannot even take a joke. PBS Newshour

So maybe add a fourth requirement is necessary to justify war. The president must be intelligent. This one is dumber than George Jr. And more corrupt than Nixon. Another factor that says military intervention is unjustified. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not even understand that.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

… Some wars are justified. And were won because all three critical factors were met - ie Desert Storm. ...

Desert storm was nothing more than a confidence exercise for a post-Vietnam, downsized and dilapidated military. We had only the capability to chase Hussein back across his border and stalemate. It would be another 10 years before we were capable of going back and finishing the job, under the guise of Iraq having WMD, by going into Iraq and eliminating Hussein. Not doing that the first time around wasn't by choice.

Not going into Iran is by choice, albeit influenced by a pusillanimous electorate.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

"War .... what is it good for. Absolutely nothing." About 1 million sang that as one in Woodstock.

Woodstock = summer 1969

"War" = released March 1970 (Temptations version) / June 1970 (more popular Edwin Starr version)

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The electorate doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to achieve that. It hasn't had since WWII. Since the advent of global terrorism, the electorate's position has been We're sorry, please don't hurt us. This has made your justifications for war a moot point. Tit-for-tat is where it's at.

This is a distinctly bizarre view on the American people.

So let me see if I have this straight:

FIRST we need to carpet bomb, etc, THEN we should decide on objectives?

[Luce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

We had only the capability to chase Hussein back across his border and stalemate.

This is absolute and undiluted rubbish.

The objective as stated was to remove the Iraqi military from Iraq. There was never any question that Iraq could have been crushed at the time.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I thought it was to remove them from Kuwait?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Luce

This is absolute and undiluted rubbish. … There was never any question that Iraq could have been crushed at the time.

You're an incompetent boob. I can see why tw likes you.

I was in the US Special Forces during the planning phase. You don't just go in with guns blazing and kill a bunch of people. You have to have the boots on the ground to manage the aftermath, control the surviving population, maintain infrastructure, reestablish government … etc. If you don't, you're soon back at square one. We didn't have the manpower capability at the time. We stalemated just as we did in Korea with the continuing problems that entailed.

Originally Posted by Luce

The objective as stated was to remove the Iraqi military from Iraq.

Don't get all excited old timer. Your blood pressure will go up and you'll start making mistakes. You don't want to sound like absolute and undiluted rubbish now do you?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I thought it was to remove them from Kuwait?

Fuck dementia.