Ledeen's Dream

I respect Michael Ledeen and, in theory, agree with this terrific read at Pajamas Media one hundred percent. Unfortunately, I don't care what the intelligence reveals, this President is not going to take on Iran, not at this time.

The Iran We Cannot Avoid

There is no escape from the war Iran is waging against us, the war that started in 1979 and is intensifying with every passing hour. We will shortly learn more about the documents we found accompanying the high-level Iranian terrorist leader we briefly arrested in Hakim’s compound in Baghdad some days ago, and what we will learn–what many key American officials have already learned–is stunning. At least to those who thought that Iran was “meddling” in Iraq, but refused to believe that it was total war, on a vast scale.

Below is a headline from today for you. And that as Iran cuts off its natural gas flow to Turkey. A little arm twisting like that goes a long way. Meanwhile, the Iranian's chief nuclear negotiator is in China.

Russia warns against Iran action

COUNTRIES taking action against Iran independent of the United Nations, as called for by Washington, would not be helpful in luring Tehran back to negotiations on its nuclear program, Russia said today.

The collective approach, embodied in a sanctions resolution adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council last month, is the way to go, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said.

Sadly, the best grade one can give the Bush administration on both Afghanistan and Iraq is an incomplete. Short of a Gulf of Tonkin moment, this administration doesn't have the credibility to attack anyone now. And that, sadly, is very much its own fault.

For heaven's sakes, we've been waiting over a month to see if Bush is going to attempt to reign in the anti-war Democrats just so he can put another 20-30k troops on the ground in Iraq. Ledeen posits: The mullahs (in Iran) are maneuvering for position, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s ever more frantic rhetoric bespeaks the intensity of the power struggle..."

In part, perhaps. But Ahmadi-Nezhad’s rhetoric also isn't being tampered by a credible voice of power from the West Wing right now, in case anyone hasn't noticed. No doubt the Mullahs have.

If it took the Bush administration four years to figure out Iran was very much the enemy in Iraq, it will take them more than the two years they have left to figure out what to do about it. That item is going to fall to our next Commander-in-Chief. And we better pray it isn't an appeasement-minded Democrat, or we'll be watching the North Korean debacle all over, again - only worse.

Jules Crittenden says Iran Wants War but Iran just doesn't want to fight it.

Unfortunately for us, I doubt they're alone on that score. They've been fighting a proxy war in Iraq since we arrived. The notion that we're just finding that out is silly. The question is are we ready to acknowledge and do something about it? And the answer from the Bush administration is going to be a resounding NO!

At most, they'll greenlight Isreal to hit the nukes and hope that the fall-out doesn't lead to a full scale war, which it might - Hezbollah could act against Israel - another democracy who gets an incomplete for their last war, as well.

Actions have consequences and bad ones, meaning indecisive action in this case, have bad consequences. When it comes to Iran, Israel and the US are now finding that out.

Comments

[MinorRipper]

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

[meredith]

This president couldn't take on Guam with his reputation and zero support. Nixon had higher numbes during Watergate than Bush does now. Word on the hill is that Dems and few Repubs are drafting a resolution that states that Bush may not attack Iran unless they attack us here AND he must go to Congress for any authorization of force of it'l be nn impeachble offense. Two unamed Repubs said they have an overwhelming number of votes and it'll have no problem passing. Might not make Mr Bush happy but it'll sure clip his wings.

[yyy]

Everyone knows the Admin has been planning to bomb Iran for many, many months.

Dubya thought he would get another 'mandate' in the midterm elections through his fear mongering tactics, but this time, it didn't work.

Given past history though, lack of legal authority, moral authority or any factual evidence whatsoever will not necessarily keep Dubya from doing what god tells him to do.

[BCMG]

Oh, totally. Remember when Nixon had big numbes?
If the Dems are drafting such a resolution it will ensure their demise in '08 and for 12 years following. Most sane Americans believe in protecting our sovereignty. Apparantly you make the case that the mainstream Democrats are not interested in protecting our sovereignty - just poll numbers. But hey - don't question your patriotism, right?
And how do you know there are "Two unamed Repubs"? FYI: leadership does not mean that anything you do you do because of poll numbers. That's why Mr. Clinton had high poll numbers, but couldn't prevent 5 terrorist attacks on America. If the Dems want to prevent the US from defending itself from Iran get used to being a second class party forever.

[yyy]

Maybe you didn't get the memo: pre-emptive war based on bogus facts is dead as a strategy.

America isn't going to buy another invasion/attack on a country that has not attacked us or threatened to attack us just because Dubya calls them evil and says there is no doubt [fill in the blank...WMD, centrifuges, Al Quada bases, nukes, whatever].

[Fred Beloit]

yyy, the President's policies have prevented another 9/11, Cole attack, etc. This is in spite of salvos of vicious criticism and attempts at obstruction from Democrat leaders. You, Kos, and the rest are now biting yourselves in the back of the neck over the good sense most of your leaders have shown on Iraq until now. This is the truth, and the truth will finally out to GW's favor.

[Fred Beloit]

Oops. The second from the last above should read: "...have shown on Iraq from the last election until now."

[allen]

Bush's grade is incomplete? What planet do you live on! Taliban, GONE. Saddam Hussein, GONE. What are Moammar Qhaddafi and A.Q. Khan doing these days? Colombia, Kashmir and North Africa have been much quieter under Bush. The Al Qaeda backed horse in Somalia, the ICU, got spanked in 2 weeks by the Ethiopians(who, by the way, we have been training). The Al Qaeda backed horse in the Phillipines, Abu Sayef, has been getting their lunch as well. We lost more troops on a yearly basis under Clinton than we have lost on a yearly basis fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. When it comes to Iran, the chess pieces are being moved on the board. In 6-12 months you will be writing about the brilliant Bush takedown of the mullahs.

[Dan Riehl]

Bush's grade is incomplete?

I said the best it could be is incomplete. Taliban gone? What books have you been reading? Out of power, yes. And the issue handed over to NATO.

[yyy]

I see no proof that any LEGITIMATE terrorist attacks have been foiled. None. Zero. Nothing. Nada.

I don't believe it. I don't even believe that any of the people we've arrested or detained as terrorists are in fact terrorists.

I don't think the government could tell the difference between a terrorist an an innocent arab/muslim/foreigner if they had Osama bin Laden's face tattood on their head.

The lack of an attack doesn't mean any attack's were thwarted, that would be like saying that every previous president had thwarted all but a handful of previous terrorist attacks when we know that is crap.

I believe Al Quada will attack us again, and I don't believe the government has now or probably will have a clue, if we are able to stop the attack it will be DUMB LUCK, nothing more.

Dubya is going down in history as the most destructive president every to sit in the white house and the Iraq war will go down as one of the biggest strategic errors our country has ever made.

The truth is we invaded a podunk country run by a nutty dicator who was no threat to the US or anyone but his own people and we replaced him with a full scale sectarian civil war which has killed tens of thousands of Iraq citizens, destroyed the country's infrastructure and very well may change the balance of power in the ME in FAVOR OF IRAN.

In other words, dismal failure on all counts except the bodycount.

[Fred Beloit]

A barrage of false statements from yyy. As is my custom, I'll answer one, the one in question. Says yyy: "I see no proof that any LEGITIMATE terrorist attacks have been foiled. None. Zero. Nothing. Nada." You might have added Rien, for our French friends. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by legitimate terrorist attacks, because all terrorist attacks are by definition illegitimate. Nevertheless yyy said, "...have been foiled." I said: "...have prevented..." Oxford American Dictionary: "prevent; to keep (a thing) from happening, to make impossible, to keep (a person) from doing something; foil; to frustrate, to thwort. Lets say someone, eg, Osama, says his organization is going to attack us and years go by without an attack, and if we are spending a lot of time, effort and money to prevent the attack, and there is no attack, then it seems that we can claim to have prevented the attack. In this case we can surely claim this because Mr, B L (war be upon him), is in hiding (or he is dead) and his organization is fighting for its life. Yes, we may be attacked in future, most particularly if a politician to yyy's likeing becomes the next President.

[yyy]

Oy god.

So, then since my house has never been attacked by terrorists, I guess I can claim that I have PREVENTED these terrorist attacks from happening.

You cannot prove a negative.

Lack of a terrorist attack can simply mean that the terrorists are biding their time and have not attempted another attack on American soil.

What I mean by LEGITIMATE TERRORIST ATTACKS, are actual planned attacks by terrorists that have been stopped rather than IMAGINARY, MADE UP attacks by terrorists that in reality don't exist, didn't exist and haven't been stopped.

We can "claim" anything we want to, we claimed there was 'no doubt' Saddam had WMD, we claimed he had centrifuges for use in making nukes, we claim we don't torture or abuse prisioners, Bush claims that god talks to him.

Let me say it another way, when the Administration CLAIMS it has prevented terrorist attacks I believe that is a lie. I do not believe we have prevented any terrorist attacks and I believe that probably 99% of the people we have detained/accused/prosecuted as terrorists are innocent, falsely accused people who simply don't like the US or the US polices in the ME.

I don't think the Spanish woman who was strip searched and deported was a terrorist, or the German muslim who was detained for 4 days without being told why was a terrorist, I think they are innocent people wrongly targeted by a government full of imbeciles who as I said, couldn't tell a real terrorist from an innocent person to save their lives and my life.

[Fred Beloit]

yyy, oyoyoy, again with the tired litany of the Left. Can you not focus on one thing at a time? The terrorists are not biding their time. They are trying, and failing, to defeat us in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are the ones who are stretched. They are too stretched to carry out their threats. Have they threatened to attack your house with a record of having attacked it or other of your property several times before? No we can't claim anything we want to and be credible. As for your house and terrorists attempting to attack it, why would they?. They would be more likely to protect it, because they probably like the way you think.

[yyy]

They are coming close to 'defeating' us in Afganistan, since we are too stretched to continue with the progress we made there, due to our Iraq folly.

Record poppy crop, reverting back to the warlord status, taliban coming back...is this what you call success?

As far as 'defeating them' in Iraq, clearly if you think we are defeating ANYBODY in Iraq then you are delusional and should seek immediate medical advice. Iraq is on the brink of a total debacle, the very best we can hope for is a Shia dictator who refrains from a full scale Sunni ethnic cleansing. If you think the mullahs aren't in charge of Maliki then you are even dumber than you appear to be.

[yyy]

PS,

Since my house in in America, and America has been attacked by terrorists, I can claim that I, personally have prevented multiple terror attacks on my own property, and since I have classiffied all information related to my heroic triump over these wannabe terrorists under national security there is no way for you to refute me.

I can claim I have thwarted thousands of terrorist attacks and you cannot disprove me because I will not give you any details of these attacks due to national security concerns.

See how it works, now?

No, of course you don't. You probably still think invading Iraq will be the jewel in Dubya's crown and turn out to be a brilliant, I tell you, a brilliant strategic move.

Dubya could also claim that he has thwarted several UFA attacks on the white house, would you believe that without proof as well?

[Fred Beloit]

Defeating us in Afghanistan? You mean attacking and being repulsed = victory? By the way I never said we were defeating them in either place. I said they were failing to defeat us. It seems to me our military is not being allowed the freedom to defeat the enemy. They seem to be in a defensive mode, defending and counter attacking rather than trying to win. That policy, if that is the policy, is wrong-headed in my view.

[Fred Beloit]

Absurdity doesn't pass for logic in most places. Surprised you haven't noticed that.

[yyy]

I direct you to what Henry Kissenger famously said.

The conventional army loses when it does not win.
The guerila army wins when it does not lose.

Now, I assume that you don't think Kissenger is a left wing moonbat, so you might take his analysis of the pitfalls of engaging a non traditional enemy fighting among a civilian population that either supports or is afraid to cross said guerila army as maybe making some sense.

Or maybe Henry isn't conservative enough? hawkish enough?

[Fred Beloit]

Now the resort to "authority." I bet this is one of the few quotes from Henry you use. But do you know why this statement is apt, especially in the time frame during which it was probably composed? Of course you do. Because it was probably inspired by our retreat from Viet Nam. A time when the Media decided to make news rather than report it. A time when a significant victory was reported as a defeat. See Tet Offensive. However, there is no denying the statement applied there. I sure hope it won't apply now. That is why some of your fellow citizens want us to go on the offense. I'm one of them.

[yyy]

OMG.

The statement applies yesterday, today and tomorrow.

It is a universal insight into the difficulty of a conventional army fighting a guerila army, and implicit in this statement is the realization that 'perception' is important...that is why the Taliban and the Iraq insurgents LOSE EVERY FIGHT with our soldiers and yet, they live to fight another day.

Go on the offensive? What does that mean? Kill everyone? Kill all the Sunnis? Napalm the whole country?

If, what you mean is the idea of the clear and hold strategy, then I am all for that but that is going to take a hell of a lot more than 20,000 more troops and we still don't have anyone to turn things over to once we've cleared and held the territory. The Iraq army is about as trustworthy as a rabid dog and probably about as trainable.

[Fred Beloit]

Actually, you are misinformed that the statement applies yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Our military, especially our Marines, have often been called upon to defeat querrillas and done so. Usually this takes time, which thanks to the modern media taking sides against our efforts and spewing enemy propaganda, makes defeating guerrillas more difficult than it used to. See Smedly Butler's life and a recent best seller about our "small wars". Sorry, forgot the full title.

[Fred Beloit]

Should be Smedley Butler.

[yyy]

What guerillas, where?

What small wars? I must have missed these.

[Fred Beloit]

Almost all in or near Central America. I'll see if I can find the book's full title. But that will have to wait until next time. Have to go for now. Will be back to Dan's site from time to time. I like it. Take care.

[yyy]

Black opps don't count.

Ya, we did a freaking bang up job in El Salvador and Nicaragua??!!?

You can prove your point by giving a concrete example of American soldiers engaged in a guerilla war with an enemy that we vanquished via military not poltical means.

[meredith]

Anyone know how to contact Dennis Prager?? I've got a great close up of Keith Ellison with his hand on Jefferson's Koran. I've enlarged and framed it for him, just don't know where to send it.

[larry]

now, now, i don't think yyy's being unreasonable. all we need to show her is an al-qaida form titled "legitimate terror operations that have been foiled by bush" and she'll agree he's done a good job.

it'll have to be, you know, signed and cc'd to all the AQ department heads, just to prove it's really real, but that isn't asking too much, right? is it?

[hobo]

OK, I need some enlightenment here. If a guy is crossing the Canadian/US border driving an automobile literally loaded with high explosives with the plan to cause some major damage to LAX and got tagged by law enforcement, wouldn't that be the prevention of terrorism (or a terrorist act)? This was a real thing and to me, I would consider it to be a bona fide prevention.

Having had a lot of expeprience in the sleuth field for a long time, I can assure the American public that a lot of prevention and thwarted attacks take place that cannot be made public because it may blow the cover on a parallel on-going,or subsequent investigation. It's like "don't let the enemy know how you operate" because they will use that info to their advantage.

One more note, if I may, regarding the Bushwhackers shuffling of the military leaders. I think he just got tired of bullying the old ones and needed fresh meat to abuse and humiliate. From Shoemaker to Shineske on down, the opening statement from the White House was "I will give them whatever the want or need"; not long later, the tone was changed and all the empty rhetoric became yesterdays news.