Is arming insurgents? What should we do? In the past the US would not get "directly" involved in conflicts but we would arm parties involved.

 

Now if there is proof that Iran is sending people over the boarder to fight or to become suicide bombers regardless if they are military or not, to me that will send us into Iran, at least tactical military strikes.

 

How should we handle both situations?

 

To me the whole war was handled very poorly and we are at the point now to where we can't stay, and we can't leave. Unfortunately I see it getting a lot worse before it gets better.

Well...we never went after China for supplying arms to the Viet Cong. But then China didn't have oil, did they?

Is arming insurgents? What should we do? In the past the US would not get "directly" involved in conflicts but we would arm parties involved.

 

Now if there is proof that Iran is sending people over the boarder to fight or to become suicide bombers regardless if they are military or not, to me that will send us into Iran, at least tactical military strikes.

 

How should we handle both situations?.

 

First of all, I'm really skeptical given what we now know about this administration's manipulation and one-sided emphasis of intelligence to paint a distorted picture of Iraq. Second, the timing of this talk about Iran is highly suspect. I find it more than a little hard to believe that we have been in Iraq for almost four years now and only fairly recently has there been such an emphasis on alleged Iranian support for those who are trying to kill our soldiers. To be quite honest, I think the administration wants an excuse to deal with Iran militarily and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they are attempting to create popular support for the use of force by painting the picture of an Iran with the blood of American soldiers on its hands. That's one of the administration's biggest problems right now--they have no more credibility left where middle east policy is concerned. I hope they do not get us all tangled up in Iran, as our military already cannot really support the path Bush has taken us down.

 

OK, to answer your question, what should we do if we find Iranian insurgent support is occurring? It's obvious--we should do what we should have done in the early days of the war--we must seal off the border with Iran. All cross-border traffic should be funneled through a very few choke points that we can control and we will have to search each vehicle passing into Iraq. Any vehicles attempting to cross the border outside of these points must be attacked and destroyed by air power. Forays over the border into Iran must be avoided at all costs. We simply cannot let the Iraq mess expand into another country.

 

 

To me the whole war was handled very poorly and we are at the point now to where we can't stay, and we can't leave. Unfortunately I see it getting a lot worse before it gets better.

 

 

You've hit the nail on the head. I find it laughable that anyone in the Bush administration would even attempt to lecture critics of its policies as it has no authority left on this subject.

What if? I thought it was a given that Iran was supplying both arms and men to the Iraq insurgency.

Excerpt from a just-posted Newsweek article about the escalating Iran/U.S. kidnappings/attacks occuring in Iraq:

 

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

 

 

It is very worrisome to think that the Bush administration may be trying to manufacture reasons to embark on an armed conflict with Iran.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/

...It is very worrisome to think that the Bush administration may be trying to manufacture reasons to embark on an armed conflict with Iran.

...

 

Where oh where is Donald Rumsfeld when we need him the most? If he were back in the SECDEF chair, I'm sure he could coerce the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invade Iran with a single battalion of infantry, and ensure a quick victory, followed by our being hailed as liberators.

 

At least we can still rely on the unwincing wisdom of Dick Cheney to lead us through the morass, and find the best political solution to this brewing problem ...

 

 

Frances

What if? I thought it was a given that Iran was supplying both arms and men to the Iraq insurgency.

 

I'm with HHSDad on this aspect of the question. I would be shocked to find anyone in upper government that didn't believe this to already be the case.

 

 

Frances

H,

 

What reason do you believe the administration wants to attack Iran for that they are painting this false picture as a subterfuge? What is to be gained by it?

 

Also, by what means do think we can "seal off the border" as you say, and can those means also be used in the U.S. with Mexico? Or is that just rhetoric?

H,

 

What reason do you believe the administration wants to attack Iran for that they are painting this false picture as a subterfuge? What is to be gained by it?

 

It appears to me that this administration is on another idealogical crusade (this time over Iran) and views the best way to accomplish their objective is by engaging in a military altercation. Ahmadinejad has been openly defiant of international pressure to cease Iran's nuclear program and the Iranians have been engaging in sabre-rattling in response to U.S. threats. Maybe Bush thinks he will have license to attack and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if the present war of words escalates into a military confrontation. I think Bush's motivation for wanting war with Iran is that he wants to eradicate their nuclear program. He recognizes that, from a historical perspective, he will indeed look like a failure for attacking the wrong country, which further emboldened its next door neighbor to freely develop nuclear weapons while the U.S. is hopelessly bogged down. Bush is desperately looking to salvage some measure of a legacy for his presidency--his policies were an utter failure in Iraq, why not try to "get it right" in Iran?

 

You cannot deny that the rhetoric with Iran has heated up substantially in the past few months. Bush has just ordered a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf and rumors are circulating that he will soon send a third. Given such an ominous buildup of force, how can you come to any other conclusion than he is planning for war with Iran? The guy has absolutely no sense of subtlety or nuance, he sees everything rather simplistically as black and white. He obviously didn't foresee the quagmire that Iraq has become. What's to prevent him from bumbling into another war?

 

 

Also, by what means do think we can "seal off the border" as you say, and can those means also be used in the U.S. with Mexico? Or is that just rhetoric?

 

First of all, I sense some skepticism in your tone. If you're skeptical of our ability to seal off the border, I think you've just about walked yourself into admitting the invasion was incredibly foolish. Incidentally, I did not intend my comments to be perceived as rhetoric. We have unmanned surveillance aircraft and satellite assets that could monitor the border for unauthorized crossings, allowing U.S. attack aircraft to take out anyone or anything attempting to circumvent official crossing points. If Iran is indeed sending people and weapons across the border to kill our troops, I would much rather see us deal with the situation directly by use of military force within Iraq's borders than to expand this war beyond its current disastrous scope. And no, I don't see it as being feasible to use ground attack aircraft to patrol the U.S. Mexico border.

 

I see the next two years as being the most dangerous of the Bush presidency. Not because of immenent threat of terrorist attack, but because the president appears dangerously out of touch with reality and heck-bent on a military confrontation with Iran. If that does come to pass, I think we'll look back on the Iraq war as "the good old days".

... What's to prevent him from bumbling into another war?

 

Wisdom, good sense, and the ability to learn from past mistakes?

 

 

Frances

 

PS - never mind. I just realized whom we are talking about.

Well...we never went after China for supplying arms to the Viet Cong. But then China didn't have oil, did they?

Like to eat? Like all the things you have made from petroleum products? Can you think of a reason not to fight for oil, since it's what the world moves on? I know you hate Bush and the Republicans, but do you honestly think that the party you support wouldn't make oil priority one?

What if you ran where ?

Where oh where is Donald Rumsfeld when we need him the most? If he were back in the SECDEF chair, I'm sure he could coerce the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invade Iran with a single battalion of infantry, and ensure a quick victory, followed by our being hailed as liberators.

 

At least we can still rely on the unwincing wisdom of Dick Cheney to lead us through the morass, and find the best political solution to this brewing problem ...

 

 

Frances

 

And we can rely on the Democrats to do nothing.

It appears to me that this administration is on another idealogical crusade (this time over Iran) and views the best way to accomplish their objective is by engaging in a military altercation. Ahmadinejad has been openly defiant of international pressure to cease Iran's nuclear program and the Iranians have been engaging in sabre-rattling in response to U.S. threats. Maybe Bush thinks he will have license to attack and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if the present war of words escalates into a military confrontation. I think Bush's motivation for wanting war with Iran is that he wants to eradicate their nuclear program. He recognizes that, from a historical perspective, he will indeed look like a failure for attacking the wrong country, which further emboldened its next door neighbor to freely develop nuclear weapons while the U.S. is hopelessly bogged down. Bush is desperately looking to salvage some measure of a legacy for his presidency--his policies were an utter failure in Iraq, why not try to "get it right" in Iran?

 

You cannot deny that the rhetoric with Iran has heated up substantially in the past few months. Bush has just ordered a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf and rumors are circulating that he will soon send a third. Given such an ominous buildup of force, how can you come to any other conclusion than he is planning for war with Iran? The guy has absolutely no sense of subtlety or nuance, he sees everything rather simplistically as black and white. He obviously didn't foresee the quagmire that Iraq has become. What's to prevent him from bumbling into another war?

 

 

 

 

First of all, I sense some skepticism in your tone. If you're skeptical of our ability to seal off the border, I think you've just about walked yourself into admitting the invasion was incredibly foolish. Incidentally, I did not intend my comments to be perceived as rhetoric. We have unmanned surveillance aircraft and satellite assets that could monitor the border for unauthorized crossings, allowing U.S. attack aircraft to take out anyone or anything attempting to circumvent official crossing points. If Iran is indeed sending people and weapons across the border to kill our troops, I would much rather see us deal with the situation directly by use of military force within Iraq's borders than to expand this war beyond its current disastrous scope. And no, I don't see it as being feasible to use ground attack aircraft to patrol the U.S. Mexico border.

 

I see the next two years as being the most dangerous of the Bush presidency. Not because of immenent threat of terrorist attack, but because the president appears dangerously out of touch with reality and heck-bent on a military confrontation with Iran. If that does come to pass, I think we'll look back on the Iraq war as "the good old days".

 

OK. Let me just respond this way. First, I don't think the movement toward armed conflict with Iran has been sudden or subtle. My best friend, who is in the Army and has done a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan, regularly reports troop buildup massing near Iran, and I think the media has covered it reasonably well. I think its been a lot longer in the making than the last few months, so I don't think its subtle. Incidentally, we are doing the same thing near Syria, and it would not shock me at all if we were fighting a multi-front war.

 

Second, if you are on the record as saying that Bush will be attacking Iran in order to eradicate their nuclear program, it is tough to then also claim it is an "ideological crusade," unless the "ideology" is opposition to Middle Eastern nucelar capability. And I'm not too sure that's not a bad objective. Those nutcases simply cannot be allowed to possess nucelar weapons.

 

Third, I think you give Bush way too much intellectual credit to claim that he would engage in this war in order to salvage his legacy. There is nothing, and I am a Bush supporter so let me repeat, NOTHING, in the evidence to suggest that George W. Bush gives the least bit of concern to his "legacy." In fact, I believe that is what is most maddening to his detractors.

 

I am skeptical of the suggestion that we can "seal a border." Iran, along with Afghanistan, has some of the least sealable borders on the face of the Earth. The Russians were unable to do it in Afghanistan in 15 years of conflict, and it can't be done with Iran, either. Air superiority is exactly that, air superiority. That tactical advantage allows uninhibited Marine deployment from the ground, but any patrolling from the air is going to have to cover an awful lot of territory to be effective. Incidentally, we have been covering the U.S.-Mexico border with the unmanned "Drones" you speak of for years, and it doesn't seem to be doing any good.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/01/apwinnipeg070112/

Iran is and has been arming insurgents for quite some time now.