On Ritter's Iran prediction: Add five months

[WilliamPitt]

I wrote this after seeing Ritter speak in July of 2002:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm

He predicted an October war. In fact, it was a March war. He missed by five months.

I went on to write a book with him on the looming Iraq war. Some might call it a defining document; say what you will about him or me, but that fucking book is still right, and was 2 1/2 years ago.

He missed by five months. It was pretty much the only thing he got wrong. So add five months, and pray.

[AZCat]

1. I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt

But it seems to me that the five month difference was due to the Bush Admin dicking around with "coalition-building", and that it would have happened in the late fall had they not gone that route (in their special ham-handed way).

I don't think Bush&Co. will be rallying the U.N. this time around, and the arm-twisting that creates coalitions will be streamlined compared to last time. I'd give Ritter a two-month window because of the increased efficiency of the war machine.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Minus three months for efficiency

Add three months for 'Who's fucking army is going to fight this?'

[AZCat]

5. Didn't you read the thread about the "robot army"?

j/k :)

I have wondered that myself, but when has reality interfered with Bush's plans? I sincerely hope that sanity prevails and someone high up realizes that it (an invasion of Iran) doesn't seem possible, but I have thought that before and been proven wrong.

Maybe they're just going to bomb Iran, although I don't know where they'd get the personnel to support that either (and there would be hell to pay worldwide).


Edit: I may have been misleading in my original post - I meant efficiency in actually starting the war (cutting out the posturing), not efficiency in anything else. I apologize for my poor explanation.

[TomClash]

17. The US Air force is hardly being used right now

except for some close support.

[punpirate]

13. Don't think so...

... because the only ones let in on the game early were Britain and Australia, and Tony Blair knew well in advance.

Take great stock in Andy Card's "you don't roll out a new product until Labor Day" remark.

When the subject of Iran came up months ago, I figured fall 2005, precisely for that reason, if Bush were re-elected.

I don't think there's any "increased efficiency of the war machine" this time around. If anything, that efficiency has been thoroughly damaged. The Bushies may be better at forcing their way into the process, and have previously gotten rid of the impediments to planning in the Pentagon, such as Shinseki and Zinni, but that in no way means that the process of fighting a war has been either simplified or improved.

It took seven months from Card's rollout to the Iraq invasion. If the Bushies are starting now, it will be at least that much time until any ground action against Iran (which I still doubt--I think this will be strictly an air war aided by offshore carrier fleet action, in which it could come sooner).

Either way, it's going to be unpleasant, unnecessary and a violation of law, and potentially the start of something much worse. Scott Ritter just reinforces everyone's worst suspicions--that it is going to happen, even if we don't know exactly how or when. Shit.

[theorist]

3. Based on what you know about him...

is there any chance that he's completely wrong? I guess what I'm asking is, was there any point during those months that he questioned his own conclusions? (Well...by that time, it was pretty clear that it was going to happen.)

Another way of asking this: For him to come out and say this, is he absolutely-f'in'-sure that it's going to happen?

[WilliamPitt]

6. A little less than two years ago

when the invasion and occupation had just begun, Ritter said we were going to lose the war. The invasion was over. We had Baghdad. The statues had been toppled. Everyone went "Whaaaaa?"

Two years later, and who's right? Ritter.

Of course there's a chance he is wrong. A good chance, actually. I have found out in recent months that it was an appalling breach of protocol for Ritter to talk to me for that interview. You just don't tell the truth like that out loud, apparently, or so saith the diplomatic circles.

By this I mean: There is a good chance the inside people who used to talk to Ritter don't talk to him anymore, or aren't in the know anymore. Things change. So yeah, he could be wrong.

But I bet my reputation on him once. I'd be willing to do it again.

[theorist]

14. The thing is, is that I want him to be wrong.

Just like most people in the world today, we want peace over war. It pains me deeply that you, someone I don't know, but trust dearly with the truth, is willing to lay his reputation on the table over this prediction. It tells me that you've seen it coming just as he has. I really need to think over this.

And it's going to be very difficult to avoid bringing this up in casual conversation. Even if I know the exact kinds of looks I get. It's the only thing I can think to do these days. (Well...the AAR crew makes me smile.)

(Thanks for the response, btw.)

[Nederland]

32. You're rewriting history

Ritter didn't just predict that tha US would "lose" the war. He predicted that the US would never take Bagdad. He was wrong, and you are trying to rewrite history by making it seem that he predicted the nature of the current mess in Iraq. He didn't.

[WilliamPitt]

33. What he missed

was the unexpected payoff of Soufrane al-Tikriti, head of Baghdad's Republican Guard division. Tikriti took a couple hundred K, got himself and his whole family out of the country, and told the Guard to stand down. The US army took the city unopposed because we bought the gatekeeper.

Now, had that payoff not taken place, the urban warfare scenarios in Baghdad with an active and fighting Guard working within an armed populace...

[Nederland]

38. Disagree

Yes, the bribe help speed the downfall of Baghdad, but the end result was never in question. As the siege of Fallujah demonstrated rather decisively, no military force in Iraq then or now could hope to hold a city or any fixed position against a determined US military. The superiority of US military is simply too overwhelming to think otherwise. The only means of resisting the US is in asymmetric warfare, and I don't believe that was what Ritter was talking about in his interview.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Fallujah was a desperation move

after more than a year of not winning. Would they have been so bold as to raze Baghdad to the ground in April of 2003? I highly doubt it...at first.

So.

[bluestateguy]

4. I still say 2007

They are going to look at the mistakes that they think they made in selling the war to the American people and try not to repeat them; they will also try to make it look like they have exhausted all options before going to war, though I can't even see Britain getting involved this time around; we won't even have a token coalition this time: it's us and Israel. Also, I think they want to keep the nation on the precipice of war for the 2006 midterms; with memories of 9/11 fading, it will get progressovely harder to milk that cow any longer--barring another attack--so keeping Americans on the verge will be their midterm strategy. They certainly won't want the campaign to be about health care, the economy or their failing Social Security scheme. War is a far safer bet for them. For now.

[autorank]

7. He's not going to war with anybody.

Why?

First, because his lovely, tolerant base, evangelicals, will eventually get the message that WH staffers cavort with gay, male prostitutes. There is no way to over estimate the power of this. No WMD, out sourcing, destruction of the constitution, blocking real science...none of these issues are current for these folks. Gay, male prostitution is. The story is getting out and these people are going to be so appalled that substantial numbers will defect from Bush. 60% of America wants real opposition. Wait until they get the word on bungholio Bush. He's down to 35% approval when this happens.

Second, we have no forces to fight this war, period. Unless we can hire on Turkey and give them a huge piece of the action (including Kurdistan) we can't do it. Who will help, Afghanistan? Iceland? Pelau? or maybe Italy or England? Not likely.

We are the "hallow men" ...


N.B. The book is outstanding!

[WilliamPitt]

8. "bungholio Bush"

I peed when I read that. In italics, no less.

Well done. *clap clap clap*

:)

[autorank]

9. I am "informed" by Beavus and Butthead! Keep up the great work!

Much appreciated.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. He's going to have a VERY hard time selling this one.

He's going to have to do the sales pitch of his life to get this one through. I don't think Americans will buy it even if he does throw in a free toaster AND a lifetime supply of rice-a-roni.

Bungholio Bush - I really enjoyed reading that! :D

[punpirate]

15. Well, I would only advise...

... keeping his pronouncements about war with Iraq in mind (those he made not long after the election). Bush said, roughly, that the election legitimized his policies. He may not believe he needs to work at stirring up the public--the strong suggestion in that statement of his is that Bush believes the public will follow wherever he leads them, now having established his role as the "war president."

If Congress defies him, which I don't think they will, it's entirely possible Bush will use the delays and reporting requirements built into the War Powers Act to attack Iran (at least by air) anyway.

We know that Bush's concept of diplomacy is, "we tell you what to do, and if you don't capitulate immediately, we bomb your citizens." Iraq was foreordained, long ago. Maybe Iran was, too.

Cheers.

[radfringe]

21. If Congress defies him...

what makes you think he's going to go to congress and ask for permission?

If no "event" occurs -- like a terrattack on US soil or Iran/Syria attacking Israel -- bush* will use the resolution regarding invading Iraq -- he'll justify it as an extension of the Iraq invasion, that the "job is not done" because Iran/Syria are providing support to insurgents which threaten the "freedom yearning" peoples of Iraq

If he does go to Congress -- dissenters will be clubbed with being unpatriotic, lots of "speeches" will be made before voting in favor of invading Syria/Iran as in "I spoke out against it before voting for it...."

we'll be bombing before the rubberstamp ink dries

[punpirate]

25. Well, I think that was...

... what I was suggesting, albeit a bit more circumspectly. Bush doesn't feel he needs, any longer, any sort of permission. *sigh*

[anarchy1999]

27. Will Pitt, Punpirate and Ritter.

Damn, I don't feel well right now. It is coming. I suspect it will be Israel launching the attack. Much as they did in taking out the nuclear facility long ago, I forget where though. Iraq?

[punpirate]

45. Yes, Iraq...

... at al-Tuwaitha, the Iraqi nuclear center near northwest Baghdad, in June, 1981. Details are here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

The situation in Iran is not nearly so clear-cut as was Iraq, because Iran learned from Iraq's mistakes, and has spread out its facilities around the country, and reportedly, much of it is underground, while the reactor being built at Bushehr (in SW Iran) is visible and above ground. Many more areas would have to be bombed, increasing the chance of civilian casualties.

But, we now have a reasonably good idea of how the Bushies telegraph their moves.

When UN negotiations were tight, orders went out to wiretap UN Security Council members to gain negotiating weight for the Iraq invasion. Most recently, Mohammed Al-Baradei of the IAEA has complained of all his phones being tapped, because the IAEA hasn't been saying the things the Bushies want them to say about Iran.

The US has been trying to push the IAEA to remove al-Baradei, or change the structure of the IAEA to its advantage, to change its direction on Iran in order to provide a veneer of international support for US military action. The US had similarly tried to interfere with the management of UNMOVIC by first planting stories in the press about Blix when early UNMOVIC reports seemed to verify UNSCOM's conclusions, then trying to pressure the UN to remove him, especially when UNMOVIC's schedule of inspections might interfere with US war timing.

Despite neo-conservative attempts to overthrow Hussein, right back to the Gulf War, and then again in 1998, there was little said about Iraq until the 2002 State of the Union. The administration still didn't begin with an official charge--just tried to subtly link 9/11 and Iraq. It was only after September, 2002, that Bush began with direct charges of WMD production and the failure of Hussein to disarm. Some reports suggest that Tony Blair was informed of the final plan in August, 2002, and only a few days later, in September, the Niger uranium claim appeared in his speeches. Despite early declarations that the UK would not participate in any action against Iran, Blair has made, in February, two statements about Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism and that it "must not obstruct progress toward Middle East peace."

In September, 2002, the US effectively cut off any direct diplomatic negotiations with Iraq, even though Bush continued to say that all diplomatic means would be explored and that there were "no plans on my desk" for war. Right now, he's saying virtually the same things, and the US is refusing, at least publicly, to cooperate with the EU mission to Iran on nuclear matters.

There are other minor similarities in timing, but, I guess we'll know for sure if Bush and subordinates begin making firm claims that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, or Bush feels the need to go to the UN and lecture them on Iran....

[readmoreoften]

49. THERE WILL BE NO WAKE UP

Gannon was a 'mistake'. Fundies accept mistakes... be it gay sex, adultery, or drug use. Use coke, be an alcoholic, drive companies into the ground, kill people (like Pickles did with her car)... all 'mistakes'.

Understand.

Fundamentalist world view: Mistakes are okay, because you're not really responsible for them. SATAN is responsible for them. So, naturally, Satan is going to invade your body and make you do things you want to do. If you slip up, it's okay. Mommy will still love you, so long as you REPENT LOUDLY, as long as you CLING TO JESUS.

It is the LIBERALS who are evil, because they don't repent, because they don't believe that sex is a sin at all! Gay marriage is more dangerous than a gay prostitute because gay marriage is a lifetime vow of non-repentance.

In the RW world view, it doesn't matter what you DO, it matters what you BELIEVE. Man is not saved by WORKS. Take that in for a moment: MAN IS NOT SAVED BY WORKS... Man is saved by HIS BELIEFS. BELIEFS ALONE.

But liberals, liberals say that yes, it does matter what you do!
Liberals say that you have to be a responsible adults.
Liberals say there is no Satan making you act out your own fantasies.
Liberals say that BELIEF isn't enough,that GOOD WORKS are important. Not because 'God' says they are, but because it's good to do good.

They won't wake up. They are a people of acting out and copping out. They are irresponsible, violent ninnies and their world-view protects them.

When you show them that they are sinners, you're only stabbing them where the devil's pickfork wounded them. They are insane and insanely protective of one another.

They are a cult. And they will not wake up.

[CoffeeCat]

11. I don't see any justification for war that America would buy...

...at this time.

Iraq/Saddam was a ready-made enemy due to the first Gulf War and 9/11 fears.

Something pretty extraordinary would have to happen to justify invading another country. I can't imagine America accepting a draft for less-than-convincing reasons.

I'm just not buying that * can start a war--simply by accusing Syria of killing a Lebanese leader; or because Syria "supports terrorists".

I don't think America would get behind a war with Iran--because Bush thinks they should stop producing nuclear weapons--which we have no proof they are producing. America doubts *'s word now, because of the nonexistent WMD. He's going to need very-legitimate reason for invading any country. Proof would be needed this time--not threats of "mushroom clouds" and "yellow cake" nonsense.

Maybe I'm being a Pollyanna, but I just can't imagine that America would be that stupid all over again.

[dbt]

20. MIHOP 2

That would be all it would take to stampede Murkins into their Lemming Loyalty Mode.

:freak:
dbt

[anarchy1999]

28. Pollyanna and incredibly naive.

Bush did it once, what makes you think he won't again? Proof? What proof?

"... but I just can't imagine that America would be that stupid all over again."

Hide and watch.

[AZCat]

30. There's no Law of Conservation of Stupidity, unfortunately

Just because a group of Americans were conned by the Bush administration re. Iraq doesn't mean that they can't be conned again.

How many people believe WMD were found in Iraq? All you have to do is work to silence the dissenters and rile up the fanatics - no real proof is needed, just Fox News style proof. Sure, we're going to scream and holler but that does no good if the Media Cartels don't give it any coverage.

[Ladyhawk]

52. I don't think you're being Pollyanna.

I'm something of a pessimist and I don't see how Shrub can get away with it a second time unless something unforeseen happens. People have already started to wise up a bit. If Shrub attacked Iran on skimpy evidence, even more people would wake up, excepting the fundy cult members and diehard neocons.

The only thing that would work, in my opinion, is another terrorist attack, which would definitely be MIHOP this time, no doubt about it.

I'm hoping the fundies and neocons are in the minority and that most of the others would wake up and smell the imperialist fascism.

[Elidor]

12. I've always found Ritter to be alarmingly credible

And discomfittingly correct. His latest forecast is terrifying. I don't doubt it.

[xchrom]

16. bush has a mandate

well, at least in his mind he has a mandate.

when i think of the muder in lebanon -- and all the sabre rattling going on with iran -- any thing is possible with bushco.

it's absolutely crdible to think that they would attempt such a thing.

i've said they would like a war with iran to see where they can take pentagon strategies for fighting an air war -- and no other reason than that.

well one other reason -- it let's china know that we have a very active and experienced military.

[radfringe]

18. It's going to be timed

with the 2006 mid-term election campaigns and used as a club for beating on Dems and other critics

I don't think bush* will have as an easy time of getting public support for a blatant invasion, and there will be alot more skeptism if he tries to use a WMD excuse

however -- there are two possibilities that will garner the needed support from the general public

1. another terr-attack on US soil -- which will be blamed on Iran and/or Syria -- doesn't matter which one, both will be invaded anyways

2. Israel bombs an Iranian nuke facility -- Iran/Syria respond to that attack with one of their own on an Israeli target -- this then means we have to go to the defense of Israel

Defending a weaker nation from attackers or responding to an attack on us is much easier for the general public to swallow

[H2O Man]

19. I would think that

the plan is for massive air strikes to hit suspected nuclear facilities. That would indicate a spring or fall date, wouldn't it, because of the weather conditions? I also would think that it is less likely that they will add a half a year, because that could allow the Iranian defense systems to become better prepared.

I would doubt that the US is planning to invade with troops. Obviously, I could be wrong. But I would wager that the neocons who are planning this are preparing a "Bay of Pigs" style invasion, intending for a general uprise to sweep Chalabi to power. The reason they think it will work is because the air cover will be firmly in place. It is not unlikely that the Chalabi forces have an organized structure within Iranian society already.

[trumad]

23. Shit!! We can't even get out of Baghdad....

20+ GI's dead in the last month and dozens of Iraqis...

[H2O Man]

24. I don't believe

that the administration has any intention of getting out of Iraq. Quite the opposite: everything that has occured so far points to a plan for long-term occupation. It would be hard to imagine that this administration would make a massive investment in Iraq, and then withdraw .... no matter how many soldiers die.

[Mika]

26. Exactly. Chaos and insurrection was the plan

That is why the Iraq Transition Project plan was ignored. If peace broke out and Iraqis controlled Iraq there would be no need for an American occupation.

[mmonk]

31. Yes

these are forward bases according to plan. They are "enduring".

[Minstrel Boy]

22. Given the "Iran can build a nuclear bomb in six months" headlines,

I think Ritter's forecast is more likely.

[Nederland]

29. Ritter has a lousy record

He also predicted that the US would "lose" the Iraq war. And no, he was not referring to losing the battle against the insurgency after the country had been taking over, he was predicting military defeat for the US against Saddam's troops. He was dead wrong then, and he's dead wrong now.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=620

Thorn in the side of the American administration, and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, has warned that America will lose the Iraq war and the American military: "will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs."

In an interview with Irish radio, Mr. Ritter said that the conflict would become an "absolute quagmire," and the US-UK advance would stall outside Baghdad and fail to capture the city.

[durutti]

36. Read Will Pitt's post.

He was saying what he said on the assumption that the U.S. wouldn't make a deal w/ the Republican Guard. But the U.S. did make such a deal -- and denied it for a considerable time thereafter.

I'm skeptical, but Ritter was right about WMDs and about the insurgency. He probably would've been right about the invasion itself if the aforementioned deal had not been made. Credit where it's due.

[Nederland]

39. Wouldn't have made a difference

see post #38

[anarchy1999]

46. Is it not an "absolute quagmire"? What did he say wrong?

Have you ever seen him speak in person? I believe you may be mislead.

[ConsAreLiars]

48. The US occupation is still "stalled outside Baghdad"

Baghdad outside the Green Zone is still "enemy" territory.

[Sir Jeffrey]

34. All ** needs for a reason to go to war with Iran is a terrorist attack...

and, if history tells us anything, from Orlando Letelier's assassin gaining illegal entry into the country to the 50 warnings that 9/11 was going to happen, the BFEE will allow the murder of innocents to advance their agenda: acquire more money and power.

When the next terrorist attack happens, none of this shit will matter:
the gay reporter
the Plame leak
the stolen elections
PATRIOT 2
UBL STILL at large
Iraq turning to shit
Pipelineistan

So after the next big attack that was allowed to happen, the vast majority of Americans will "rally round the flag" and "support our president" and all of that bs. Our elected representatives will see more doctored intelligence placing the blame on Iran and will vote for whatever ** wants, including the draft. The dissenters will be shouted down YET AGAIN by the mainstream press and Mr. Pitt's work, which I respect immensely, will never get the coverage it rightfully deserves.

[hlthe2b]

35. Will, is Ritter predicting an invasion or a bombing of a nuclear site?

Not that either is something a sane pResident would advocate, mind you, but I'm a bit confused.

As for war with Iran, my parents lived there until just shortly before the Shah was deposed and had many many Iranian friends (they did not chose to live in the American cloistered sections). While only a teen and only there briefly on vacations from school, I knew and my sister knew things were heating up--quite different from when they had arrived--and were begging our parents to leave 2 years before Americans began to go home.

My point though is that we heard from some of those Iranian friends who immigrated later that the level of nationalism that took over after the Shah was deposed had turned even the geekiest students on college campuses into AK47-wielding voluntary forces for Ayatollah Khomeini to banish western imperialists. I remember several of these guys from my trips there-- these were Beatle-loving very westernized and secular Iranians, with little interest in going to prayer, observing Ramadan, or having their girlfriends/wives/mothers return to strict cover under the chadora. Yet, the wave of nationalism had them picking up guns to support a dictatorial religious theocracy.

I've since had a chance to be reacquainted with one of those geeky kids from my teens who had changed so dramatically after the Shah. Farshad immigrated by way of Europe to the US and is now the funny, kooky but very smart guy I remember, married to a Christian European, and as far from the AK47 toting days as one could imagine. He is also at a loss to explain that period, but just smiles, while getting a bit misty-eyed at how much his country changed.

But, Farshad underscores to me the ultimate fallacy: If the Bushies* think we could waltz in Iran as we did Iraq, God help us all.

[kineneb]

51. I lived in Iran

for a year (70-71 school year), attended Tehran American School! My family returned to the US about a year into the revolution. I am betting late spring/early summer. Why? BushCo will never allow Iran to start up their oil bourse which will use the euro as standard currency. It has little to do with nuke power, but control of the oil supply. Hence the desire for permanent bases in Iraq and places like Uzbekistan.

[durutti]

37. Again, Will, the problem is that neither you nor he nor anyone else

...has given a satisfactory account of his turn from a "we must invade Iraq now" position to "Iraq has no WMDs" position.

The quantitative vs. qualitative distinction doesn't cut it. Ritter told Congress that Iraq was "not nearly" disarmed (emphasis added) and argued for an invasion at the time.

I can think of several possible explanations:

1. Ritter isn't willing to admit that he was being dishonest in the 1990s. Maybe he was in on the spying, too?

2. Ritter is just a naysayer who got lucky.

3. Ritter was bought off by the Iraqi government.

Maybe it's one of the above. Maybe it's something else. But it is clear, IMHO, that there are some things Ritter hasn't told us.

[Goldmund]

41. How do you address the big question:

"Where are we gonna get the troops to do it?"?

[Roland99]

42. Well, it would have been right-on if Powell hadn't forced them to go to UN

[Cleita]

43. Ritter has really been on target on so many things and

it's not because he's psychic but because he has the facts that enable him to project likely scenarios. Too bad we can't get the freepers to take a long hard look at what he says. He has also stated that he is a registered Republican. You'd think they'd listen to one of their own, but instead they would rather believe the Karl Rove smear about him being a pedophile.

[springhill]

44. Seymour Hersh has been saying the same thing....

It's not as if this is coming from out of the blue as he has already stated the intentions of the United States. He has also stated that this information comes directly from people inside the pentagon who know what is being planned. this administration is far from being done with attacking other mideast countries. So little times, so much war to make. Anyway, here is the New Yorker article: "The Coming Wars"

THE COMING WARS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17
George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

[Ladyhawk]

47. Our military is stretched thin as it is.

Would they really be so stupid as to go to war against Iran? I've read that a draft wouldn't help, so what are they going to do? Iran will beat us up. War would have to take the form of endless airstrikes. Maybe they won't occupy the country, but simply take out so-called "military targets."

I'd like to hear your opinion on this, Pitt. I just can't see them ignoring the state of our armed forces.

Maybe they really are that stupid.

[Chomskyite]

50. Air attacks is the only way we'd do anything

On the ground, Iran would launch wave after wave like the Soviets did against the Nazis and like the Chinese did against us during the Korean War. We'd need at least 500k troops to even attempt it.

You'd have to be crazy, which Bush is. But you'd also have to have a LOT of courage. Bush has zero.