Middle east.

[Ras72]

Is it telling there were more people here:
Attachment 114322

Than here:
Attachment 114321

[Colinmclelland]

I'm curious, why this bad guy? Why was he not acceptable but the Saudi Prince is?

[bigbill]

But wouldn't you agree that the jury is out on what response is overwhelming enough to eliminate the will to counter attack by a force that has no way of winning based on total destructive capacity and knows it.

And the corollary in disproportionate warfare seems to be how little does the little guy have to do to demoralize the population of a larger country - specifically perhaps a representative democracy - to the point where they effect a change in the government that changes/reduces/removes the tactics of overwhelming response.

For the first part, wrecking an economy by removing its revenue sources will cause a collapse in the government. No money, no influence, no power. When the previous administration returned the money to Iran, they spent it on weapons. Weapons they didn't' have the hard currency to buy previously.

For the second part, one could draw a parallel with Vietnam and the US, but the US didn't use overwhelming force in that war. The US doesn't want war with Iran, no one is interested in invading or occupying them. I believe that Iran will back down.

[j44ke]

For the first part, wrecking an economy by removing its revenue sources will cause a collapse in the government. No money, no influence, no power. When the previous administration returned the money to Iran, they spent it on weapons. Weapons they didn't' have the hard currency to buy previously.

For the second part, one could draw a parallel with Vietnam and the US, but the US didn't use overwhelming force in that war. The US doesn't want war with Iran, no one is interested in invading or occupying them. I believe that Iran will back down.

Removing revenue sources hasn't worked with Venezuela. That country has been wrecked by US sanctions and mismanagement by their leaders. Pompeo's guy is still on the outside looking in.

What would have been overwhelming force in Vietnam? The US is estimated to have dropped 7 million tons of bombs during the Vietnam War, 3 times as much as WWII.

[rwsaunders]

I understand that the US needs to conduct clandestine operations where lives are risked and lives are taken and in most cases, the masses including me, never have a clue what went down. For that matter, there are many countries that conduct similar operations all over the world and within our own country...Israel, Russia, Great Britain, China, France, the list goes on. Soleimani and his entourage flew into a hostile zone, left the airport in a motorcade and they were taken out. I don’t think that a lot of folks would be surprised at that outcome, given the volatility of the region and the nature of the current conflict. Why did our military leaders feel the need to broadcast that we were involved in this particular case, when quite frankly, the “don’t proclaim and don't explain” approach works so much better?

[bigbill]

Removing revenue sources hasn't worked with Venezuela. That country has been wrecked by US sanctions and mismanagement by their leaders. Pompeo's guy is still on the outside looking in.

What would have been overwhelming force in Vietnam? The US is estimated to have dropped 7 million tons of bombs during the Vietnam War, 3 times as much as WWII.

The US dropped bombs in jungles and useless targets. They couldn't pursue NV aircraft into certain airspace. They weren't allowed to bomb certain parts of the country until later and by then support in the US was wavering. Overwhelming force was available but misapplied.

[bigbill]

I understand that the US needs to conduct clandestine operations where lives are risked and lives are taken and in most cases, the masses including me, never have a clue what went down. For that matter, there are many countries that conduct similar operations all over the world and within our own country...Israel, Russia, Great Britain, China, France, the list goes on. Soleimani and his entourage flew into a hostile zone, left the airport in a motorcade and they were taken out. I don’t think that a lot of folks would be surprised at that outcome, given the volatility of the region and the nature of the current conflict. Why did our military leaders feel the need to broadcast that we were involved in this particular case, when quite frankly, the “don’t proclaim and don't explain” approach works so much better?

Because Trump likes to brag and boast. I spent a decade in special operations and most things are better left unsaid. Could have taken him out in a different way with plausible deniability.

[mjbabcock]

Big bill has expertise that I will defer to any day. That said, an expert on NPR this evening was saying that Iran might pursue political means to avenge the assassination instead of military means. It was interesting to think Iran would pursue a strategy that got the US out of the region in a way that allowed Iranian influence to strengthen.

[Mabouya]

an expert on NPR this evening was saying that Iran might pursue political means to avenge the assassination instead of military means.

Or maybe not: Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General - The New York Times

Khamenei Wants to Put Iran’s Stamp on Reprisal for U.S. Killing of Top General

In a departure from Iran’s usual tactics of hiding behind proxies, the country’s supreme leader wants any retaliation for the killing of a top military commander to be carried out openly by Iranian forces.

In the tense hours following the American killing of a top Iranian military commander, the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made a rare appearance at a meeting of the government’s National Security Council to lay down the parameters for any retaliation. It must be a direct and proportional attack on American interests, he said, openly carried out by Iranian forces themselves, three Iranians familiar with the meeting said Monday.

It was a startling departure for the Iranian leadership. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Tehran had almost always cloaked its attacks behind the actions of proxies it had cultivated around the region. But in the fury generated by the killing of the military commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a close ally and personal friend of the supreme leader, the ayatollah was willing to cast aside those traditional cautions.

[Mark Walberg]

Because Trump likes to brag and boast. I spent a decade in special operations and most things are better left unsaid. Could have taken him out in a different way with plausible deniability.

There is no way that Trump could stand NOT taking credit.

[j44ke]

The US dropped bombs in jungles and useless targets. They couldn't pursue NV aircraft into certain airspace. They weren't allowed to bomb certain parts of the country until later and by then support in the US was wavering. Overwhelming force was available but misapplied.

Sorry to keep asking questions, but don't you think that those kinds of equivocation & logistical issues are possible - perhaps even probable - in a conflict with Iran? I wonder if the kind of overwhelming force required is nearly impossible to bring to bear by a democracy. Especially in a post-WWII, post-Vietnam democracy nearly split down the middle politically. Already there is noise - even from a few Republicans - about Trump's twitted list of 52 sites in Iran.

I think the only way the United States produces the kind of unilateral overwhelming force against another country is if the executive branch is given absolute authority to wage war as it sees fit.

And then there is Russia. Unless Trump has some sort of deal trading Syria for Iran - which I highly doubt, because Putin didn't need to make a deal, he already has Syria - Russia isn't just going to sit back and watch the show. They are going to demand rules of engagement, just like they did in Syria. And possibly take the rest of Georgia.

Big bill has expertise that I will defer to any day. That said, an expert on NPR this evening was saying that Iran might pursue political means to avenge the assassination instead of military means. It was interesting to think Iran would pursue a strategy that got the US out of the region in a way that allowed Iranian influence to strengthen.

I think Bill is right - no one in this arrangement wants a war. But one of them does want to get re-elected. So political revenge is what I think is going to happen. The one thing that Trump wants more than anything else is to get re-elected. So the Iranians will try to prevent it. They've done a pretty good job affecting American politics in the past, and that was without the Internet.

[vertical_doug]

The US dropped bombs in jungles and useless targets. They couldn't pursue NV aircraft into certain airspace. They weren't allowed to bomb certain parts of the country until later and by then support in the US was wavering. Overwhelming force was available but misapplied.

You may be right in that if you bombed enough of them in Hanoi, maybe the US and South Vietnam could have beaten the North. But was not the outcome then a corrupt and unpopular US supported South Vietnam, and an endless guerrilla war with the Viet Cong based in Laos? We'd probably still be on the ground in Vietnam.
The one thing the US Military did learn was the war was lost with the draft. If the US Military ever decided to reinstate the draft, I believe public opinion would turn on the endless wars quickly.

[colker]

It was interesting to think Iran would pursue a strategy that got the US out of the region in a way that allowed Iranian influence to strengthen.

That´s my first conclusion minutes after the strike: it does not increase american influence over Iraq and Syria but favours Iran and russia taking the whole place under their guidance. "The iraquis will oppose american forces"... they did. "The iranians will unite under hardliners"...they did. It was too obvious. Unless that guy was the ultimate master mind of the Iranian state it makes no sense killing him like that.

[mzilliox]

Letter to the Times:


Amir
Iran2h ago
Times Pick
I was in the protests today. There were literally millions of people and there was no sponsorship from government. (I was personally waiting 2 hours in a subway station so I can get on a train).

A lot of people in Iran have many problems with our government and even our regime. But it doesn't mean that your selfish president can decide to terror one of our official Generals in an official trip with an official invitation from Iraq. What do you name this? And now he is talking about destructing our cultural and historical sites!!! Do you think we have to sit at home and smile? Iran is different from Arab nations, all politically, socially, and culturally.

Iran is a unique country and I can assure you there is no way to understand it through mass media.
I read a lot of your comments and I've gotta tell you really have a little understanding of our region. You have to know a lot more to understand what is the meaning of power in Middle East.

There are reasons reason that even this president of yours repeats again and again that we don't want regime change in Iran. The first one is they can't. Not everything is gun and equipment, specially in this region.

And as I was reading your comments I felt you need to be a little bit more humble about other human beings. It's not like everyone is here in this world to serve United States and its people.

A little respect from both sides could be a good start.

Sorry I was a bit angry reading some comments, and I made it too long ;)


War is stupid. The US is le non plus ultra of destroying countries, but we absolutely suck at living up to the point of the whole enterprise our country was founded to be.

nobody is listening to this. we obviously know soooo much better

[Fiery]

For the first part, wrecking an economy by removing its revenue sources will cause a collapse in the government. No money, no influence, no power.

Could you share some examples of this approach working as described? Honest question, I can't think of any, but I am not very well versed in the post-WW2 history and politics, and would like to learn.

[ides1056]

Another letter to the Times:

Aaron
San Francisco10h ago
Times Pick
I was at a friend’s house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton’s victory. When the networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international relations who was with us ominously predicted, “we are going to war with Iran.”

And here we are.


To my mind, genocide begins with a number: one million. More than that number were killed in Iraq after GWB gunned up a war. A half million died under sanctions during the Clinton administration.



There isn't time enough in eternity to atone for this sin.

[colker]

I think Bill is right - no one in this arrangement wants a war. But one of them does want to get re-elected. So political revenge is what I think is going to happen. The one thing that Trump wants more than anything else is to get re-elected. So the Iranians will try to prevent it. They've done a pretty good job affecting American politics in the past, and that was without the Internet.

Huh? Which good job affecting american politics did Iran?

[Dallas Tex]

Huh? Which good job affecting american politics did Iran?

The US news media had a little counter on the TV screen during the Iranian hostage crisis. ‘Day 241 of the hostage crisis.....’ I’d have to guess that was crushing to any hopes of re-election for the carter administration.

[colker]

For the first part, wrecking an economy by removing its revenue sources will cause a collapse in the government.

Did not work in Venezuela nor even in Cuba when the soviets quit throwing money there. As far as i understood the killing of Suleimani is about Hzbollah and other proxies not the iranian army; if one of the top hzbollah leaders were taken out in the same fashion we would not even be discussing the strike. Problem w/ taking Suleimani is how bad are the political consequences.

[colker]

The US news media had a little counter on the TV screen during the Iranian hostage crisis. ‘Day 241 of the hostage crisis.....’ I’d have to guess that was crushing to any hopes of re-election for the carter administration.

Are you saying they did it to crush Carter´s re election? I believe it´s about affecting their own poltics: typical propaganda of authoritarian state to bring supporters to radicalism. NOw when the russians build pages on facebook to influence voters towards Trump there is a good job of affecting american politics.