Thank you for this post. Nothing else to add; Mr Leverett's message speaks for itself.

In watching the moron's Iraq speech I had a strange sense of deja vu that I couldn't quite pin down at the time. It wasn't memories of Tricky Dick or LBJ. It was the eerily familiar tone of voice.

It came clear the next morning. Bush's voice sounded very much like that of another mental defective president, Ronald Reagan. During his unfortunate presidency Reagan's brain was rotting away under the effects of Alzheimers disease and that gave his speech a monotone characteristic that some found to be soothing. Of course Bush's tone of voice may have been the result of his handlers having just administered electroshock to get him aligned for the big event or he may be on a new set of drugs. Possibly he was even trying to imitate Reagan, but I suspect the most likely cause is the continuing deterioration of his ape-like brain as a result of extensive medication and the effects of incipient alzheimers.

I'm not big on tin-foil hat theories, but if there is one thing that this administration has learned, is that fear is best facilitator of Presidential policy goals. The more the American public feels threatened, the more likely they are to defer to the Commander-in-Chief.

This president has staked his legacy on the Middle East, and so far, he has replaced Iraqi tyranny with Iraqi civil war. Bush believes that his conviction and firmness will vindicate him in the end. Unfortunately for the rest of us, this means “doubling-down” with more of the same. Saddam was an irresistible target for him to prove his historic mettle, and I believe that he feels the same way for the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil.

Like a true gambler, he never quits.

Andrea Mitchell, in discussion with Tom Ashbrook and others this morning (WBUR), allowed as how she'd talked with intelligence officials this morning who say an attack on Iran is planned and Condi's flight east today is to alert the Saudis and others.

The Brits don't have 40,000 troops in Iraq. More like 7,000.

I posted this a couple of days ago on a Larry Johnson piece but it applies more today than it did two days ago:
For the last 6 years, I have felt like a passenger strapped into a car being driven by a reckless drunken teenager, hoping he doesn't miss a turn and go over a cliff. It wasn't my choice to get in the car with him. He sideswiped a tree or two and ran over some pedestrians but when he said Iran and Syria, I knew the cliff was near.

That's a good point. On the other hand, you could argue it was a confirmation of Fun Times in Iran. Britain doesn't want any part of it, so Blair is bailing as fast as he can.
Anyone else got the feeling they're going "Through the Looking Glass" via the "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?"

we know from any kind of mediation process that it is possible to start from zero agreement. Just talking is already a shift. To demand that the other side change, especially in fundamentals, before talking, is a non-starter.

The evidence so far is that the admin is just being provacitive on purpose as part of a larger strategy of polarization. (Or is it just fear and incompetence?)

Wow! That means it could be imminent.

Unbelievable! But with this madman idiot in charge - not unbelievable! Is there a therapist who can intervene quickly?

Tom

Before Iraq I thought for a while that maybe 'moderate intimidation' was what was going on. Maybe it was more hope than thought. Now I think that what is going on is laying the groundwork for another war to destroy all nations that are both oil rich and hostile to the United States and Israel. They won't bother with Syria. They won't try to occupy Iran too, just bomb all military facilities and much infrastructure and maybe sieze the oilfields and secure them with a threat to bomb Tehran too. I hope I am just overreacting to my own earlier underreading of 'the evil that lurks in the heart' of DC today.

global citizen

Consider this correlation from recent years: After Afghanistan we received overtures form Rasfanjani offering intel help. This was ignored.

Then we invade Iraq, and Ahmadinejad is elected. Looks like the response to implied intimidation was a stiffening of Iranian nationalism.

Then Democrats regain Congress, and the moderate Rasfanjani is re-elected, to the Council of Guardians.

Stratfor believes this latest gambit is also directed at Iran. In their view the 21,000 troops are not enough to do be successful in Iraq but it would be enough along with the Naval ships entering the Gulf to threaten Iran.

In addition to the U.S. moves the Israelis, at U.S. behest, have been suggesting that they alone can take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Additionally, the Sunni Arabs have stepped up both their efforts with Israel and the pressing the U.S. to take on Iran.

According to Stratfor the goal of this is to force Iran to meet the Bush goals for a negotiation. They point out that the new troops will not be in Iraq immediately and it will give Iran time to offer a deal. Whether is accurate or will work is not at all clear.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I guess a lot of people think "high crimes" means extraordinarily serious or vicious crimes whereas I believe "high" refers to the importance of the office -- crimes which the ordinary citizen doesn't have the opportunity to commit but which are associated with the powers and responsibilities of the position.

Seems to me the framers had in mind a society in which a president is chosen from among us ordinary people but when s/he accepts the office, s/he accepts the responsibility to play by the "high-falutin'" rules of that office and the Constitution. So it makes sense that the peoples' house plays a big role in determining whether impeachment is merited and for what. Maybe firing US attorneys (see San Diego, Cunningham at Daily Muck) for investigating government officials and contributing corporations is a high crime. I'd call it that.

The Iran move may in part be part of a strategy to make it even more difficult to investigate or impeach Bush/Cheney -- "we're at war" "irresponsible to investigate a president at such a time" etc., etc. Oh boy.

I refer you to this post at Balkinzation by Sandy Levinson, in which he states:

The only reason we take this egregious man seriously is because the Constitution makes it impossible to replace him with someone capable of carrying on an adult conversation. Lots of people are about to die because of the mistaken decision of the Framers not to make "maladministration" an impeachable offense and our supine belief that whatever the Framers decided serves as well (or "well enough") today.

I'm surprised how prescient so many of the comments here have been:  for once even mine.  But then, on reflection, I shouldn't be at all surprised.  A pretty smart bunch of people hang out around here.  Thanks to you all for being both brainy and feisty.  I'm feeling fairly brainy myself.  I spelled cassus belli right--the first time. 

aMike

Concessions? Perhaps no substantive ones.

Value? Several areas. The most basic is human intelligence, learning personal styles, and quite possibly picking up bits that fit into a larger matrix.

In quite a number of adversarial situations, it still is useful for the adversaries to make the first baby steps to being able to talk at all. To quote Churchill, "it is better to jaw, jaw, than war, war."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When speaking of Tonkin Gulf, it's well to consider some things from perspective now available. At the time, it appeared to be North Vietnamese attacks on US destroyers in international waters.

The sides disagreed over a 3 mile or 12 mile limit. More importantly, however, was information not available to Congress at the time. The presence, but not the mission, of the destroyers was known. The fact of other missions were not known.

Specifically, there were ongoing covert raids on the North Vietnamese coast by US-South Vietnamese smaller craft (junks and high-speed patrol boats). This was the MAROPS (Maritime Operarations) sub-part of CINCPAC (Commander in Chief, Pacific) OPLAN 34A (covert operations).

The destroyers were clearly identified as US vessels. Typically, they operated as two-ship elements, one carrying a mobile signal intelligence collection van on its deck. These missions were called the DESOTO patrols, and there's been much recent declassification available at www.nsa.gov.

The North Vietnamese may have thought 34A and DESOTO were parts of the same operation. They weren't, but no one below very senior US command knew that. Can we say "fog of war"?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Does that mean that the Tonkin Gulf incident was not a fake pretext for war, as some have alleged? Was it more of a miscalculation? Was the miscalculation more on our part or on the part of the North Vietnamese?

What I remember at the time of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution is that Hans Mackauer, then perhaps the top academic on Realpolitik, appeared on a late-night talk show and said, "Do you understand what this means? This will take 500,000 troops!" He seemed shocked. Nobody that I am aware of picked up on the comment, however, and the way I remember it is that the general public went about their business as if nothing was happening.

During my lifetime, the American public has tended to sleep-walk its way into wars.

Miscalculation fits better than anything else. The North Vietnamese knew they were being fired at, but not by whom. The US tactical commanders didn't necessarily have access to the communications intelligence being collected, which showed some confusion by the North Vietnamese as well as the US. At the local level, I'd pretty well say miscalculation on both sides.

Higher up the food chain, there was both North Vietnamese aggression against the south, but the lesser known covert operations against the north.

Apropos of the US retaliatory response, HR McMaster, in Dereliction of Duty, documents that LBJ went on TV to make evening television and morning newspaper deadlines -- even though US Navy aircraft were still inbound to their targets. Johnson gave away tactical surprise to help his public relations; what probably saved more aircrew is the North Vietnamese wouldn't believe LBJ do anything that silly.

Apropos of the Resolution itself, the question remains why there was so much urgency for escalation. Now, it's perfectly appropriate for troops to be able to fire back when fired upon. It obviously was necessary to delegate nuclear release authority if there were 20 minutes to impact. Afghanistan after 9/11 was proportional. Iran today, and the "surge", worry me.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Hoppy, I find myself in the unpleasant position of disagreeing with much of you say here, as well thought out and well expressed as it is.

The idea that a President should not be impeached for lying under oath offends me. For lying under oath while President offends me even more. Yes, the whole impeachment thing was a Grand Guignol. Yes, the investigation was going to find a charge for him with even if the charge had to be Dotting "i's" With Smiley Faces. Yes, he was maneuvered into it. Yes, it was payback for Nixon. No, he didn't actually lie; rather, he stretched the truth to within a nanometer of breaking. But the charge itself is a REAL, VALID charge. If we let our leaders get away with truly lying under oath, we are lost.

I also take issue with the idea that we would be in the process of impeachment if not for political cowardice. I don't deny the cowardice. I maintain that politics as we practice it these days is enough reason to keep the Mitch McConnell contingent in line and a number of Democrats in their camp.

Impeachment gets less likely with every day that goes by. That's scary, because it gives Monkey Man more and more hubris and feeds his greed more and more as time goes by; and he had plenty of hubris and greed to begin with.

This would imply a rather subtle game of Khamenei.

Does the game of chess originate in Persia?

Howard - a related but separate question for you or others who know the military.

Is it true that about command for Iran? I just saw a report dated Oct 2006: 

command responsibility for Iran. This has been shifted from Central Command (which has its hands full with Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan) to Strategic Command located at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. The effect is that the US’ strategic global deterrence missile and bomber assets are now directly engaged in the Iran question, without the distractions of ongoing land operations in the region.

If so, how does this matter to this discussion in terms of US intention and military planning and operations coordination?

On the contrary, I think it implies Iranians are quite a bit like us. After the US suffered 9/11 they stepped up to help, no doubt because of a mix of motivations including simple humanitarianism as well as being in a position to do a useful favor for a major power.

Then when they were still being treated without respect, and saw the gunsights turning their way, they elected a strong nationalist.

Then when they saw Bush being humiliated in Iraq, and Americans turning away from his policies, they elected Rasfanjani because they see Ahmadinejad now as inviting trouble instead of defending against it.

My first reaction is that doesn't make sense. Oversimplifying a bit, STRATCOM's specific charter is nuclear war. Manned bombers "chop" to its control only when on what used to be call SIOP (now OPPLAN 8830) missions. Its continuing role is nuclear targeting, C3I, missile defense, threat reduction, and assorted other things -- it doesn't have the organization to control an ongoing, nonstrategic nuclear battle.

One of the reasons that I'd wonder about this is that carrier forces would almost certainly play a role. When carriers had the longer-range A-6 bomber, they did sometimes come under SIOP control, but I wouldn't consider current carrier aircraft especially plausible for nuclear attack. Support of nuclear attack from bombers, ICBMs, or submarines, perhaps.

One of the fundamental reasons to create the SIOP was deconfliction, and, while SIOP has changed name, the whole philosophy is centralized control. Ground forces don't have nuclear systems, although they might chop to STRATCOM control for missile defense.

I'm not sure what to make of that report -- it raises as many questions as it answers.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Animal Farm...the barking dogs are about to be released...congress to be 'dismissed'...Blackwater utilized...now what you gonna' do? Try to start accountability for this WH...ha-ha ha-ha ha. Policy dictated by American interests...what are American interests...Exxon-Mobile? Why do we care about Iran/Iraq anyway...huh-huh-huh...How you likin' that, huh, how you likin' that? Taking an Iranian Embassy on the first morning of the 'Surge'. Do we look that stupid? So I'm an idiot but outside of violence(which I can always do as last resort) how do I or We stop this. Please...I wanna' know.

 but I wouldn't consider current carrier aircraft especially plausible for nuclear attack.

 I find that very surprising. I guess I just assumed that a carrier task force would have nuclear weapons and a good aircraft delivery system.

 What aircraft does Israel plan to use to deliver a nuke to Iran if they make that choice?

Tuck and roll, man, tuck and roll.

J. McCutchen

Just saw Leverret on "Countdown"

John Bolton, in an off-the-record conversation, appears to agree with you re the collaboration between Moscow and Teheran and is bummed that Iran didn't kick out IAEA inspecters or withdraw from the NPT:

"I think the Iranian reaction to the sanctions resolution has been very telling in that respect. Although they've passed a resolution in Parliament to reevaluate their relationship with the IAEA they have not rejected the sanctions resolution. They have not done anything more dramatic. such as withdrawn from the non proliferation treaty or throwing out inspectors of the IAEA which I had hoped they would do ---that that kind of reaction would produce the counter reaction which would be more beneficial to us. So I think their very cautious, the Iranian's cautious reaction so far shows that they're not terribly worried by this sanctions resolution and that the Russians have counseled them that they actually came away better than might have been expected and therefore their reaction needs to be low key."

There are a bit like us all right: Ahmedinejad copied the idea that picking on an external villified enemy can boost your popularity, and Iranians copied the idea of seeing through such tricks (alas, those tricks are not exactly cheap).

Even so, Khamenei pushed very strongly to re-assert the power of religious authority, and to screen candidates more zealously for the orthodoxy. Moreover, Rafsanjani is as much of an insider as one can get, barring Khamenei himself. Unleashing Ahmedinejad and then cutting him down to size could be calculated.

Howard, I saw the following somewhere today and copied this sentence with you in mind, but I forgot to copy the source and I can't remember where I saw it. Anyway...

Israel has acquired three submarines capable of launching cruise missiles and has equipped some of its aircraft with additional fuel tanks, putting Israeli F-16I fighters within the range of most Iranian targets.

Impeachment: It's Not Just for BJs Anymore

Flynt was just on Countdown.

Tom

I wouldn't argue that an F-16I with drop tanks can reach targets in Iran, but it's a marginal aircraft for deep raids. When Israel attacked the Osirak reactor, they had F-16C air-to-air fighters, but no F-15E fighter-bombers.

Adding fuel means you have to leave off something else: bombs, air-to-air missiles, antiradar missiles, and electronic warfare pods. The F15 series, to some extent, get around certain limitations of drop tanks with what are called conformal fuel tanks that wrap around the fuselage and present minimum drag.

Another argument against the F-16I is that it's a one-man aircraft. In general, most sophisticated air forces have found that the workload of complex ground attack missions needs a pilot plus a weapons system operator. The F15E does have a crew of 2.

Incidentally, I should add to my earlier post about US navy aircraft is that the F/A-18E/F, essentially a new and longer-ranged fighter bomber, and the EF-18G electronic warfare aircraft, are now in production and joining the fleet -- although experience is still being gained.

Israel's German-built submarine are reputed to carry an uprated Harpoon missile that could carry a lightweight nuclear weapon. The logical role for an Israeli sub-launched nuclear force, however, is a relatively invulnerable second-strike deterrent force. I've seen some confusing reports that suggest Israel's land-based missiles are not well hardened, although taking out a missile in a silo of any hardening is a tough problem -- very questionable for the Iranians.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The worst thing that Clinton did, imo, was to shake his finger and say "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," to the American people.

I was and am an admirer and a defender of President Clinton, but saying that was outrageous.

Falling into a perjury trap should not have been an impeachable offense, and it's not clear that he actually lied, even if he was less than candid.

What if he'd said it without shaking his finger? OK then?

It's amazing that people can so quickly forget that Clinton was impeached for fibbing about having sex with an intern. That lowers the bar way down near overtime parking for defining a "high crime and misdemeanor".

I suppose that it all depends on what your values are. Essentially, Clinton committed adultery, if you respect the 10 commandments, and if you have respect for women, then you might say: "Clinton repeatedly used his position to solicit sex from employees."

In general, some part of me thinks that Clinton committed "high crimes" because the "Democratic Party" is supposed to be about respecting women and Clinton failed to do that, he used his position to get sex.

Of course Lewinsky might have been willing but I think that the President should prove that "the laws I enforce, by sending folks to jail, can be followed!"

It's amazing that people can so quickly forget that Clinton was impeached for fibbing about having sex with an intern. That lowers the bar way down near overtime parking for defining a "high crime and misdemeanor".

I suppose that it all depends on what your values are. Essentially, Clinton committed adultery, if you respect the 10 commandments, and if you have respect for women, then you might say: "Clinton repeatedly used his position to solicit sex from employees."

In general, some part of me thinks that Clinton committed "high crimes" because the "Democratic Party" is supposed to be about respecting women and Clinton failed to do that, he used his position to get sex.

Of course Lewinsky might have been willing but I think that the President should prove that "the laws I enforce, by sending folks to jail, can be followed!"

This sounds familiar.

You may want to skip the following highly speculative posting.

Some 3 or more years ago, Josh wrote a piece somewhere titled "Chaos Is The Plan". The article that he wrote beneath it somehow didn't seem to fit with the title, and all I came away with was this notion that maybe chaos was the plan in Iraq, and maybe in the entire region.

Over the subsequent years, I've picked up this idea repeatedly, and gradually constructed a rationale for it. Currently, it goes something like this:

Israel decided, years back, that there was no way it could ever live with its neighbors, no way it could ever find peace with them. While surrounding Muslim countries had functioning economies and governments, and an income that could buy weapons, they would pose a perpetual threat. The military option of defeating and occupying them was not possible: there simply weren't enough Israelis to do it. So Israel decided that the best way to deal with its neighbors would be to successively turn each of them into failed states, working to destroy their economies and overthrow their governments. If they could progressively degrade surrounding countries into absolute Third World poverty and chaos, these states would cease to pose an effective threat to Israel. It would also allow Israel to expand its borders largely unhindered by effective opposition.

At the same time, the US decided that, if it was going to keep control of Gulf oil supplies, it was simply getting too hard to do it using unreliable proxies like Saddam Hussein. Proxy control needed to be replaced by direct military control. And the best way to do this was to adopt the new Israeli policy of simply degrading states in the region into absolute poverty and chaos and anarchy. So long as the US controlled the oil fields and pipelines, who gave a damn about the indigenous peoples of the region?

In this manner, Israeli and US interests coincided. If they didn't set out to degrade every country simultaneously, it was because that was too expensive, and would attract international outrage. Done little by little, country by country, it would be both cheaper and less offensive to civilised opinion.

The plan has been steadily proceeding ever since. The Palestinains have been reduced to something like a subsisistence existence. And now civil war-torn Iraq is heading in the same direction. Civil war in Iraq is, in this scenario, not a failure: it's a great success - reconstructing Iraq (or Afghanistan) was the last thing America wanted to do. The Israeli attack on Lebanon's infrastructure last year gave that country a mighty shove towards economic and political chaos and collapse - another great success.

Seen this way, nothing's gone wrong with the plan at all so far. It's all going swimmingly well. It's just become time to move on to degrade another couple of regional states: Iran and Syria. With Iran's western oil fields siezed, and both Syria and Iran given the Lebanon treatment of infrastructure degradation and regime destabilization, another couple of states will collapse into anarchy and poverty and civil war. And once that job's been done, then the same thing will be done to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and any other potential regional threat. That's what's meant by "Staying the Course". The net result will be a single buoyant functioning state - Israel - floating in a chaotic sea of anarchic, war-torn, failed states, and a US army in control of every single regional oil field, with barbed wire fences to keep out the surrounding hordes of starving natives.

That, in outline, is the underlying strategy I've found myself sketching out. It's one that sees America and Israel emerge as clear winners, and which sends the entire rest of the Middle East back to the stone age, country by country.

If that's the strategy, and it's all going to plan, what are its long term chances of success?

Next to zero, is my guess.

Somebody annexed Austria and the world stood by. He then more forcefully annexed Czechoslovakia and the world more anxiously stood by. Next Poland...

Bush should read history. It didn't end well.

Would the gear and personnel be useful if the goal was to be prepared for a move blocking some waterway by Iran or some terrorist group??

Constitutionally, I think it would be reasonable to have a "sense of the congress" resolution requiring demonstration of an immediate threat before an attack not under a Declaration of War. I'd separate impeachment, since that is a different Article than Congress' power to make war. Clearly, violating the resolution could be a major charge in articles of impeachment.

I'd like to emphasize that the resolution should specifically cite the authority of the Congress to make war. Nothing in the resolution would interfere with the President's ability to ask for a declaration of war.

Politically? I wish I knew. I think separating the impeachment clause gives the resolution a better chance and still really has the same effect.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

AHmadinejad isn't in charge for Iran's foreign policy, and in fact even he's been conciliatory.

It was Ahmadinejad who, while at the UN, offered to open up Iran's nuclear program to international investment, thus ensuring that it can't be secretly be diverted to nuclear weapons programs. This was the same suggestion of the IAEA. It was refused without consideration.

In fact, Iran has submitted at least 6 offers of compromise - all of them have been ignored.

True enough, but the same applies to Europe, Russia, India, China, Korea, Japan, Brazil .. and they are not in the long run going to all stand by and let US get all of it. If we're eventually going to have fight over it, why can't we have a few folks on our side?

We still make these arguments without fully getting our minds around the facts on the ground. We're trying to occupy an Islamic civilization. Whatever games we play and whatever lies we tell ourselves about occupation or withdrawal, Iran isn't going anywhere. Like Vietnam, this is at the heart of our folly. The people of the region are staying, it's only we who have to decide how and how long to stay.

Hitler's - and Germany's - greatest weakness in WW II was a shortage of fuel to drive the war machine.
America runs the far and away greatest war machine in the world.
It can either provide the wherewithal to fuel itself or fail as an obsolete mechanism.
How's that for Darwinian logic ?

Amen. I cannot begin to understand why this simple fact somehow never figures into the discussion.

George Packer managed to wrote a fawning panegiric (in the New Yorker, sorry for missing the ref) about "anthropologists" consulting for the CIA on counterinsurgency, and not one of them ever notes this: we do not belong there, do not want to stay there, and ultimately will have to go away. Doesn't matter whether Gates sets a "timetable" or not: their folks aren't going anywhere, our folks are not going to stay. They know it, we know it. We are living an unsustainable lie.

Ah ha!! I suspect you've been talking with the fly on the wall in Cheney's office again, idlex.

That scenario doesn't take a conscious conspiracy, it's the "fall back position". We're off to spread the veneer of democracy over puppet governments - and if it doesn't work - oh well. You can see Cheney's reptilian grin as he says to Hadley with a wink, "We'll be damned if we do and damned if we don't" ("Damned" in the sense of "Well I'll be damned!") When failure is the fall back position to an endeavor there's nothing to lose.

Will this exchange turn into a belli dance?

Inquiring minds want to know, as they suppress an off-color limerick (are there on-color limericks?)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Your position sounds similar to my own: an impeachable offense is something that is committed using the power of the office. That implies something I don't really like, which is a limited immunity, while in office, to ordinary criminal prosecution -- but I firmly believe that holding the office also stops the statute of limitation clock.

As I say, I'm not enthused about the strict definition, but I think it does limit pure political maneuvers.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

There's been a general trend to reduce nuclear weapons at sea, except for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. While the F/A-18 carrier fighter-bomber is certified to carry the B61 and B83 nuclear bombs, they have quite limited range. Now-retired A6 medium carrier bombers had the range, but had limited capability to penetrate air defense. Admittedly in a badly planned daylight attack, A6s were hit going into the Bekaa Valley. There are no current standoff missiles, with nuclear warheads, certified for either Air Force or Navy fighter-bombers.

This may be something of an aside, but having a particular bomb or missile "certified" for an aircraft is often a major project. The policy relevance is that adapting weapons for one aircraft is usually not quick. It may sound counterintuitive, but the "simple" process of dropping a bomb often is anything but. It may be necessary to use small explosive charges to be sure the bomb "separates" from the rack that carries it. During testing of one nuclear bomb from a bomber with an internal bomb bay, the (dummy) bomb would fall about two feet, and then glide in position on the airflow under the plane. Eventually, a windscreen needed to be lowered in front, before drop, to be sure the bomb separated.

For "smart" weapons, their electronics need to be integrated with those of the aircraft. Again, this has policy implications -- if the US gave GBU-28 "bunker busters" to a country with F-16's, the F-16's bombing system wouldn't know how to aim or drop them. (Actually, a GBU-28 is too heavy for a standard F-16)

Land-based F16 and F15E fighter-bombers also are certified for those gravity bombs -- the B61 is the "tactical" bomb and the B83 "strategic". B61-11 bombs have a very limited earth penetrating capability.

None of these is especially stealthy or carries a large amount of electronic countermeasures, and would have to go in as formations, combined with electronic warfare and anti-fighter aircraft, and possibly preceded by aircraft attacking air defenses.

Were the intention to use free-falling gravity bombs on a target, the likely aircraft would be B2 "stealth" bombers, regularly based at Whiteman AFB in Missouri (and forward based at Diego Garcia and Guam). With refueling, they are quite capable of hitting targets essentially anywhere in the world. B2s have a reasonable chance of hitting the target without being detected, and without escorts. They might be escorted on the way out.

B52s could attack with standoff Air Launched Cruise Missiles, but these are unlikely to be used against precision targets. B52s have very marginal capability to fight their way in through a serious air defense network.

There have been occasional reports of using conventional-explosive "bunker-busters", possibly followed by a small nuclear bomb such as the B61 (B61s and B83s have settable variable yield). The F15E can deliver the GBU-28 and the B-2 the GBU-37, with newer versions in the pipeline. AFAIK, no current carrier aircraft can use these large bombs, although the F-35 may have the capability.

US land- and submarine-based ballistic missiles are extremely accurate and could be used against hardened targets, but generally would produce more fallout than the aircraft-delivered weapons.

Israel does have a variant of the US F15E, but they would almost certainly use land-based Jericho II or III ballistic missiles for nuclear strikes against Iran. F15Es would be a possibility, but Israel does not have dedicated electronic warfare planes to escort them. Conceivably, the Israelis might try F15Es for precision attack with gravity weapons.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard, you may be unaware that the latest upgraded F-16Is, delivery started late 2003, are two seaters.

I go back and forth deciding whether your reply is an acknowledgement of the "logic game" I played out by matching the "attack Iran" idea with another that used the same ingredients or if you mean to truly bring me to task.

For what its worth, the difference between residents and visitors is how I try to understand what is presented as "facts on the ground."

I know that saying the above doesn't touch upon your demand that the mary-go-round stop spinning. It makes me nauseous too. I don't think that a direct appeal to a self evident reality can stop it. Self evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Arguments are a natural consequence.

With respect to impeachment, the reason why I think it's important to hold officials to a standard (and ourselves too, for that matter!) is that the law should be supreme. Without law, nuthin'.

You'll have seen in today's papers (or heard on NPR) the story about the Pentagon official in charge of detainee policy urging corporations to threaten law firms which defend Guantanamo prisoners pro bono. The guy, evidently a lawyer himself, has absolutely no idea what the law is about, least of all about the extent to which we depend on advocacy and on the adversarial system in both law and politics.

Bush does know what the law is and he depends heavily on lawyers in his administration to find ways for him to skirt, evade, or break the law.

I'm not a lawyer -- far from it. But it scares me ****less when I see a sizeable group in our country saying, in effect, "the law doesn't hold when it stands in our way."

I'm saying that while we may be part of the problem, we are not part of the solution, at least not now. I think we need to get out of there and wait till the region generates some leadership worthy of support. That may be a long time and there may be hell to pay before it happens but we can't make it happen. We no longer have any credibility and short of a draft and a significant increase in taxes we don't have the resources. If that scares the hell out of other nations in the region or elsewhere in the world - let them put their money and manpower and leadership on the table.

LOL. Truth be known, I was thinking of a "flip" in terms of Condi's recently abandoned hairstyle.

Agreed. While small tankers are vulnerable, the Very Large Crude Carriers (200,000 to 320,000 ton) and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (320,000-550,000) used in the Gulf are quite resistant to explosives and are highly compartmented. The idea of putting the Naval vessels behind was that they could reach over the tankers with radar and missiles, but an under-10,000 ton warship cannot take the same hits.

The greatest conventional weapons threat to a supertanker is from below: mines and torpedoes. Bombs and missiles let air out, not water in. Perhaps a scarier proposition would be naval special forces capturing such a ship and steering it into a bad, bad place.

Personally, I prefer telecommuting to carpooling.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

My food prices will go up, but not by as much as you imagine.  I walk to work now.

Personally, I use a bicycle which seems to be at par with a supertanker: in November, I had a collision with an SUV, and the guy claims 2k of damages, while the bike is barely scratched! (My gortex-like jacket has torn sleeve after hitting the pavement, and the propulsion system of my bike had to heal for 3 weeks. Insurance companies did not settle yet who is liable, but I made no claim about the jacket.)

Here's a link to a fairly recent Iranian Order of Battle:

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/Iran.pdf

If these estimates are accurate, I can understand the Bush calculation. On paper, Iran is a pushover with a total active force of 300,000, outmoded equipment, and brittle, Soviet-style tactics.

Given everything we've seen Bush do since his initial inaguration, I'd find it hard to believe that he's not made the decision for yet another pointless aggression. When you think you only have a hammer, you also think everything looks like a nail. But, of course, I'm not an expert and I could be wrong.

Next stop Stalingrad?

Sam Thornton

My secret desire is that GWB applies his world knowledge and orders an attack on Iowa, thinking that there's more than one four-letter threat starting with the letter I. Indeed, he may be planning a nuclear technology export to Indiana, complementing the State of Indiana award, quickly withdrawn, of the software development for their unemployment system going to an Indian firm.

More seriously, the main Iranian force is, indeed, with old equipment and questionable maintenance. The Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran), at one time a fairly fanatical religiously-driven body with less discipline than the regular military but more fervor, possibly has redefined itself into more of a force for asymmetrical attack, including denying the Strait of Hormuz.

While Iran's air defense started out worse than Iraq's and suffered from lack of maintenance, ground attack on Iran, geographically, is more challenging than moving on Iraq. In some respects, ground attack from the west (i.e., Iraq) starts out with the best roads, but runs into the Zagros Mountains. I don't think it's logistically or politically feasible to launch a ground attack from any other direct neighbors (conceivably the UAE), leaving a sea approach.

The easier (in relative terms only) would be landing from the Gulf of Oman, but that leaves a force a couple of hundred miles from the key base of Bandar Abbas and the Strait of Hormuz. Is a direct assault in the Bandar Abbas area possible? I'd have to research the coast there, or find someone more expert, to see if there is a place where a signficant landing would have any chance of building a force away from Iranian forces, then being strong enough to take Bandar Abbas. It's not Dieppe, but I wouldn't like to be in that force. I don't see how the logistics could support a division or multi-division highly mobile force, such as armor or air assault.

On both sides, an air war is more feasible. Iran does make some of its own missiles, and certain short- to medium-range antishipping missiles may be well done. The big if is their longer-range missiles. The Fateh-110 has been tested and appears to have significantly better guidance than anything Iraqi, but it is limited to about 130 mile range against land targets.
The question is the later models (B/C/D) of their Shahab-3 series. It is hardly a recommendation that these are based on the North Korean Nodong-1 (the Nodong-2 was the recent abortive long-range test), but some analysts think they might have enough range and accuracy to be much more of a threat than the SCUD. Realistically, they almost certainly would be limited to conventional explosive warheads. Could the newer US theater ballistic missile defense systems intercept them? Maybe.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

One listing under Personnel should make war gamers nervous; the 2,000,000 members of the Baseej militia. The number is probably a lot smaller than that but it still means that the ratio between the equivalent of Saddam's Feyadeen to regular forces is astonishingly high.

Another difference from the former Iraqi paramilitary is that you don't have a paranoic single despot who made sure that the Feyadeen's largest piece of equipment was a Toyota pickup truck.

The Order of Battle you linked to has put SCIRI on the chart. The implications of that alone shows that the basement to the White House would have to be converted into a crystal meth lab before ground forces moved against Iran.

Tom and Howard,

Remembering "Shock and Awe," I don't doubt these folks can swoop in and do some real damage very quickly.  Undoubtedly the Iranians know it as well.  Can they offer enough damage to make it not worth it?  Bush and company have proven singularly incapable of evaluating that question.

The issue at hand is HOW WILL THE REST OF THE WORLD RESPOND?  How will the US feel when the UNITED NATIONS is withdrawn from NEW YORK, for example?  We think we are a super power, but when China dumps our dollars, Europe scorns our passports, and Mexico builds a fence to keep us out, we will begin to feel mighty lonely.

The issue you raise is one of many. I would have to ask, for each of your national or transnational examples, what would be the pros and cons for them? I am not at all suggesting an attack on Iran, which I consider idiotic. Nevertheless, I am also cynical about how much "world opinion" really becomes a deciding point for international actors.

Certainly, some nations are concerned with morality and legality, which historically has been much less of concern to China than to a number of European countries.

When you speak of scorning passports, have you thought of the consequences for the scorning country? Is this selective to tourism, and what will be the domestic effect of revenue loss? I am not saying a country may not choose to do just that, but one must consider if the reaction can be sold domestically.

What about professional visits, especially when US citizens are employees of multinationals? I used to work for Nortel, then the largest Canadian company. Officially, I was a remote worker in Virginia, with my manager in Ottawa and team colleagues in North America and Europe. If, for example, Britain or Sweden blocked one of my trips to our research laboratories there because I am a US citizen, what is the reaction of Canada?

A colleague is a distinguished expert in fire safety, with a visiting professorship in Europe as well as his regular post in the US. At what points to countries deprive themselves of his knowledge?

Commercial agreements are obvious targets. Airbus would probably take away orders from Boeing, so it's worth considering the US political pressures that might be applied by Boeing and its suppliers? Would Boeing decide that military aircract are more profitable than airliners? Historically, they are not.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Somehow, I am reminded of the response of Pope John XXIII to the question, "How many people work in the Vatican?"

"About a third of them."

Nortel was one of the most satisfying places I've worked, first in carrier router product development and then in the corporate research lab. Unfortunately -- and I'm happy to hear from surviving friends that they just might be starting to recover -- there had been some awful management, and the place tended to the bureaucratic. While I may be rejoining a firm with whom I've had excellent experience in the past, I'd go back to Nortel.

It is said there was a boat race between Cisco and Nortel, and Nortel lost. The Nortel executives tasked their management consultants to come up with a better strategy.

The answer was to get rid of two of the rowers and replace them with two middle managers to repeat the coxswain's orders.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*