Bush Blinks:

[jeffreyab]

Salon on why there will not be a US war with Iran anytime soon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature

Comments

[xtatic1.livejournal.com]

Can't get through without logging in as a subscriber.

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Funny I am not a subscriber but I can click through.

Which browser do you use?

Usually you can read it after watching a commercial.

[dekarch.livejournal.com]

I tried the link and got an article on bats. But I looked around and found what I was after. I've been arguing for years that the spectre of an invasion of Iran is a boogieman thrown up by Bush's domestic political enemies. The math simply doesn't support it.

Count Soldiers. Count Soldier already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Count Soldiers who are getting ready to go to Iraq and Afghanistan (ie--the same number as are in theater already). All these numbers are available on the internet.

Figure out how, with the Soldiers you have left over, you would conquer and occupy a nation with three times the population of Iraq.

It's a strawman. We simply won't do it--and never seriously intended to. A few cruise missles here or there, and certainly some tough noises--we are the Bad Cop to Europe's Good Cop in the game of trying to get them to stop building nukes before the Israelis USE the nukes they already have to render the entire discussion as utterly academic as a debate on the beft defense policy for the Roman Empire.

I'd take anything Juan Cole writes with a HUGE grain of salt.

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

I remember back in the 1990's they talked about building a US Armed Forces that could fight 2 medium sized wars at the same time.

I guess Bush and Cheney decided to test that capability, it does imply that the Army and Marines are tapped out, however I assume the Navy and Air Force could fight another purely naval and air war.

Although paying for that war is another question. I have been watching Foyle's War and it shows the sacrifices made during WWII that people forget comes with total war.

[dekarch.livejournal.com]

There's no such thing as a purely naval and air war. That's a myth that the Navy and Air Force are rather fond of--it justifies lots of funding. But that's merely blockade and bombardment, and hence indecisive for actually taking down a country.

The United States could fight two medium-sized conventional wars at the same time. Conventional wars against the United States last six weeks or less--no one short of the Chinese or possibly the Russians can put a force in the field for longer than that. And if we were fighting the North Koreans, say, that would all there would need to be. An insurgency is far more expensive in terms of troops--and it necessitates long-term commitment of troops, so you need rest and refit cycles and trainup and continuous redeployment cycles. A conventional war, you could put nearly the entire Army in the field, fight it, and then go home.