Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Bloody the Persian Nose

It has been reported that Iran is supplying military assistance to various extremist groups in Iraq with the sole intent of harming coalition troops. Is this news? Has this not been going on since just about day one? Wars in this age are often fought by proxy and this is what Iran is doing. We do the same. Nothing out of the ordinary there really and it is hard to fault the Persians for playing the game as it is played. With that being said however, the U.S., with or without coalition approval and assistance, should reserve the right to give the Persians a bloody nose. If for no other reason than to give tangible evidence of our displeasure with their action. No I am not talking about a long, drawn out ground war. I am certainly not talking about nation building, nor am I talking about attacks upon civilian centers.

I am talking about our strategic forces earning their pay with the utter destruction of  Pasdaran and naval facilities. Let them know for certain that it burns to touch a hot stove.

I am heartily sick of our military people getting maimed and killed with no real tangible recourse allowed them.

Aren't You?


Jayhawk said...

I think the better solution is to just get the hell out of there. What are we accomplishing? We are leaving in five months anyway, so why not now? What are we doing in the meantime, other than serving as targets? Are 46,000 American troops going to conduct any kind of meaningful battle against 250,000 troops of Al Sadr and 500,000 troops of Iran?

Bartender Cabbie said...

I agree with you to some extent. I never really quite understood the fascination with taking Saddam out. I suppose one has to take the last administration at their word; that there were WMD's at stake. I always looked at Saddam as a useful counterweight to Iran. After the first Gulf War he was left in power with enough military might to somewhat offset a regionally strong Iran. Mainly what has happened here is that we have upset the balance of power in the region. Now we, and our allies, are the balancers here. I think it will be very difficult to totally leave the region. Of course the naval forces will remain.
Problem is I suppose is that I have been to a military funeral of a local kid killed in action at the hands of these scum. I would not want anyone who serves our nation to have their death be totally in vain. I don't want another Vietnam where our people were lost for no reason whatsoever.
Iran is a dangerous nation. They are the "big dog" in the region and do some saber rattling. One has to take that rattling at least somewhat seriously.
At this time their anti ship capability is apparently a danger to our fleet. They are fighting us by proxy in Iraq and most likely the Afghan theatre. I would have no trouble with a strategic strike against their most dangerous organization- the Pasdaran- and their anti shipping capability. Perhaps their nuclear program as well.
World "leaders" would be outraged. Local Mohammedan nations would be appalled; in public. Privately is a different matter....

Jayhawk said...

More deaths do not validate earlier deaths. They are just more deaths.

If our purpose was to capture WMD's, we failed; they were not there. Time to leave. If our purpose was to take out Saddam, we succeeded; he's dead, hanged. Time to leave. If our purpose was to "spread democracy," we succeeded; they have a democracy. Time to leave.

What does staying there now and getting good men killed accomplish? It does no honor to those who died before.

What is Iran or Iraq going to do that a mere 46,000 of our soldiers would be able to stop? Or even significantly hinder?

I am reminded of "The Bridge On The River Kwai" as the major looks at the devastation and the dead and says sadly, "Madness, madness."

Bartender Cabbie said...

Ok I agree with you again, to some extent. We did not find WMD's, Saddam is gone, and we did "spread democracy." I personally think that "spreading democracy" in that region is a fool's errand and I would imagine that any democracy that takes hold in the region will likely come back to bite us. That is why I am suspicious of and somewhat fearful of this "Arab Spring."

That being said, I do think it adviseable to withdraw ground forces from Iraq but at the same time, I believe that Iran will come to dominate Iraq to the detriment of our local "allies" and, by extension, the West.

I am distinguishing here between our tactical and strategic forces in a possible strike against the Islamic Republic. Perhaps it is not a necessity (at this time), but the very real possibility of such an action needs to be conveyed to them. They need to understand it and they need to fear it. I fear, at some point, that one (or more) of our warships will be targeted with "sunburn" missiles and the chances of a succesful defense against a multiple launch are not good. Of course I am no expert, but I have read a good bit about the known capability of the Persians. Their coastal artillery is pretty elaborate apparently.
I think it wise to make it clear to Iran that any further overt or covert action against our forces could result in a devestating consequence.