Blueprint for Failure: On Mismatched Strategies and Objectives

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from riserburn:

... .


This brings us to the point the IMHO defines the reality of why this administration brought us into Iraq. Iraqi oilfields is bargaining leverage for the entire world.

Had the UN weapons inspection given Saddam a clean bill, the embargo would have been lifted and Iraqi oil would have gone back on to the open market. Since Saddam had already made arrangements to give preference to any company that was not American, this would have spelled disaster for US oil companies. Dubya and Dead-eye Cheney could not allow this to happen to their corporate buddies. All the talk about diplomatic solutions was meaningless. It was never meant to succeed nor was time going to be allotted for it to.

The bulk majority of Iraqi oil is effectively still off the market and safe in the hands of US control for the time being. It doesn't matter how democratic this new Iraqi government is going to be. It will be useless to the US to have anything less than a Iraqi puppet that will remain oil friendly for many years to come.

If Iraq actually had anything to do with the war on terrorism, none of the tactics employed there would be a smart move. There is nothing brilliant about providing convenient targets for your enemy. What the US is doing in Iraq is equivalent to looking for a gas leak with a Zippo.

Every American needs to get used to the idea: the troops will not be coming home. They are entrenched there for political reasons tied to oil until someone diplomatically and/or militarily boots us out. There will never be a victory declared because the real objective is too publicly outrageous to admit and those in power require a boogie-man bargaining chip to stay in power.

I guess the "war to keep oil prices high" argument is the left's answer to the "Clinton sold the Chinese nuclear secrets" charge from the right. Probably no one will ever know for sure if either is accurate. I would like to be able to call your claim absurd, but there have been so many inexplicable developments regarding Saddam Hussein, dating back to before the first Gulf war, that I can't.

I do know the American foreign policy establishment, Democrat and Republican, has been deeply infiltrated by the saudi government. This takes the form of enormous financial investment, aided and abetted by the Arabist culture that has had enormous influence in the career foreign service. Confusingly, there has also been enormous Israeli influence acting on our foreign policy during this same period.

I think left and right can agree that it is imperative that we move beyond an oil-based economy with all deliberate speed.

 

[thunderinvalley]

the left and the right, the up and the down, the out and the insideout..

where does it end?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from hapaboy:

Nik,

As I understand it, taking out Iran's nuke capability would be anything but a walk in the park.

All the reports I've read state that their programs are scattered across the country and deep underground. There isn't one central location we can hit that will remove their capability.

I see, I was unaware of that, hap. Makes it very difficult to pursue AAA's Type I - II attacks (I am assuming that a targeted strike at nuclear assets would fall somewhere in between). If, as AAA says, an attack on Iran to disable its nuclear attack capacity involves the destruction of all its naval and air assets (and you might as well just say all its major military assets because they would send in whatever army the possess as soon as something like this started), then we are essentially talking about a declaration of war. Again, does Ahmadinejad's frothing and ranting constitute enough of an attack on the sovereignty of the U.S to justify such a declaration (justify in the old sense)? Let's put it this way, Israel has every right at this point to adopt a 'preparing for war' footing. If they went to war against Iran, the U.S. and Canada would be their allies.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from traderNik:

What makes me think Iran would use a nuke? Well, I saw what another group of Muslim maniacs did on 9-11. If they are capable of actually carrying out that kind of attack out, are you telling me that you cannot imagine, in your wildest dreams, another Muslim fanatic with access to a nuke delivering it into the heart of Jerusalem or Manhattan?

IMHO Iran wants nukes for the sole purpose of political leverage. Unlike a terrorist cell that can fade back into the shadows, it has to stand on it's global political feet and take a full-fledge retaliation and it knows it; regardless of what purpose it claims to have rights to push that button.

As for Islamic Fundamentalist fanatics, they would have an easier time of buying a nuke off the black market as it is rather than wait for Iraq to come with the capabilities to build one. There are plenty of unemployed Russian physicists and engineers
to aid in that endeavor, but I don't see the same concern displayed by the UN in that matter.

However, I do recognize the difference between the need for military assets in defense of the country and otherwise.

In this age of modern conflict post Cold War, I don't see the need for the US to have an extensive nuke arsenal. It's costly and provides very little deterrent in light of all the other latest defense options. The land-based platforms are obsolete and are doing nothing more than leeching millions off the defense budget. The US would not skip a beat in maintaining nuke deterrence simply with it's submarine and bomber platforms. Trashing the silos and other land-based mounts would be a win-win monetarily and politically IMHO.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from riserburn:

IMHO Iran wants nukes for the sole purpose of political leverage. Unlike a terrorist cell that can fade back into the shadows, it has to stand on it's global political feet and take a full-fledge retaliation and it knows it; regardless of what purpose it claims to have rights to push that button.

Let's assume that that's true - it doesn't address the point that they would gladly provide a working bomb into the hands of a terrorist cell. The technical knowledge gained by their work on nukes in the next decade will put them closer and closer to the point where they can deliver small packages - small enough to smuggle into the U.S. or any other Western democracy. Again, the question is this - do you believe that this couldn't happen?

Quote from riserburn:
As for Islamic Fundamentalist fanatics, they would have an easier time of buying a nuke off the black market as it is rather than wait for Iraq to come with the capabilities to build one. There are plenty of unemployed Russian physicists and engineers
to aid in that endeavor, but I don't see the same concern displayed by the UN in that matter.

Someone who knows more about the possibility that this is true can weigh in here, but I just don't believe this. The nuke black market? Does there exist a black market for nuclear bombs? Maybe for the components, but... the challenge is actually making one, isn't it. The idea that there are 'plenty' of Russians waiting to build a nuke for an Islamic terrorist organization seems unlikely to me. I'll gladly take an abuse that's coming to me as a result of this statement. If there is a black market for ready-to-go nuclear bombs, we are in huge trouble.

Quote from riserburn:
In this age of modern conflict post Cold War, I don't see the need for the US to have an extensive nuke arsenal.

I submit that the extent of the United States' required nuclear arsenal is a part of a different discussion than the one we are having here. You seem to have more knowledge of the extent of this arsenal than I.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I guess the "war to keep oil prices high" argument is the left's answer to the "Clinton sold the Chinese nuclear secrets" charge from the right.

Who said anything about keeping oil prices high as an objective? That's just a bonus consequence IMHO. Control is the key objective here. In warfare, you don't truly have control unless you occupy realestate.

Saddam had already expressed interest in Fina and Lukoil as his main operators while the UN discussed lifting the embargo if a clean bill was give after weapons inspections. All the posturing by him in the process was frustration for having his turban repeatedly ruffled by the UN and displays of defiance to save face to his fellow Arabs. You'd get pissed off too if the cops kept beating down your door with a warrant, rearranging your furniture, and leaving empty-handed each time.

I do know the American foreign policy establishment, Democrat and Republican, has been deeply infiltrated by the Saudi government.

Absolutely; if this administration was actually that serious about fighting Islamic Fundamentalist radicals bent on American destruction, they would be all over the ass infested with the most fleas.

I think left and right can agree that it is imperative that we move beyond an oil-based economy with all deliberate speed.

Can't argue with you there either. It has always been my belief that the most effective means of waging war against this enemy is to hit them where it hurts the most; square in the wallet. Name one other commodity that they possess that funds them the same way oil does.

 

[LeonPhelps]

Yo, man, you's gots to be a trustin SOB to believe that that crazy-ass Ahbinajihad mofo aint gonna use no nukes. Howzit he gonna be talkin to some 1000 yr old imam at the bottom of some well in the desert and then come up with anything that makes any kind of sense? Dude thinks he's the friggin chosen one to usher in The New Age. If you give him da bomb just let me know ahead of time so I can move to bumf**k Arkansas and load up on Covasier in the bunker.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from traderNik:

Let's assume that that's true - it doesn't address the point that they would gladly provide a working bomb into the hands of a terrorist cell. The technical knowledge gained by their work on nukes in the next decade will put them closer and closer to the point where they can deliver small packages - small enough to smuggle into the U.S. or any other Western democracy. Again, the question is this - do you believe that this couldn't happen?

It's one thing for a terrorist cell to get their hands on a nuke. It's an entirely different matter for one to be handed to them by a sovereign nation. As hell bent on infidel destruction as Iran might thump their chest to be, they are still quite aware of the consequences for getting caught in this act. Isreali and NATO intelligence sources are hard fool and they damn well know it.

However, of course this could happen, but it could happen right now. Why wait for anything small or miniature? Our port authority process is so flimsy, the majority of the containers don't get inspected. It seems to me a whole lot of feathers are being ruffled about something that might happen in the future is superseding the obvious threats in the present. Every good infantryman is taught that when one is under attack from the defensive position, the proper order of target acquisition is to start with the immediate threats; the closest one first and work your way out to longer range. It seems this administration, like damn near everything else, has it ass backwards.

Someone who knows more about the possibility that this is true can weigh in here, but I just don't believe this. The nuke black market? Does there exist a black market for nuclear bombs? Maybe for the components, but... the challenge is actually making one, isn't it. The idea that there are 'plenty' of Russians waiting to build a nuke for an Islamic terrorist organization seems unlikely to me. I'll gladly take an abuse that's coming to me as a result of this statement. If there is a black market for ready-to-go nuclear bombs, we are in huge trouble.

A year ago, a program on discovery was done about US and NATO physicists and engineers going over to Russia to help them test their aging nuke arsenal and uranium stockpile. Several Russians openly admitted that once the wall fell and former government employees weren't getting paid, they simply didn't show up for work. Nukes and weapons grade components were left unattended. It took quite awhile for the incoming regime to regain control and accountability. To this day, it is unknown how much is missing, but they do know for a fact that some of it has slipped through the cracks. This isn't the first time this concern had been reported.

The hardest component to obtain is the weapons grade uranium or plutonium. The rest can be fabricated. Ready made nukes? Highly unlikely. Components? Extremely plausible.

 

[Pekelo]

I will just comment on a bunch of different responses:

Yes, and 9-11, London, Spain, Bali, Nairobi et. al undermine the arguments from the left about the illegality or immorality of preemptive strikes.


No, it doesn't. Those attacks weren't between 2 countries but a country and a gsmall group of people. I have no problem if a country as a retaliation or even preemptive measure drops a bomb on a terrorist camp. But taking over the whole country, specially using the attack as an excuse. It is Pearl harbour all over again.

Preemptive war is not something to be taken lightly.

No shit. Preemptive war is more illegal than getting out of the NPT.


...when irrational enemies begin to develop WMD,

I have a book for you : The Wizards of Armaggedon.
Once you read it you can think about just how rational was the US cold war military strategy and planning concerned an all out nuclear war with the Russians....

Thus, any attack against their WMD assets would of necessity require a comprehensive destruction of all their naval and air assets.

Great. Now we are talking about complete destruction of the supposed enemy forces, not just taking out the WMD making facilities. That's how wars escalate...

IMHO Iran wants nukes for the sole purpose of political leverage.

No shit. Once your neighbour has the nukes, you have an incentive to have some. Not to mention that no nuke-owning country was ever attacked by the US.