The answer to your question is the appeasement in the Middle East that has been going on for about 50 years. We should have learned our lesson by now. It is time to take care of the root of the problem.
Joseph Marshall commented on my comment:
I must say, Mr. Lindeskog, ideology aside, folks like you amaze me. Make a third war on Iran, while we have two still going on that we haven't yet finished? Do you think our military resources are bottomless?
Go over to globalsecurity.org and take a good look at how thin we really are stretched. The section you want is named "Where Are The Legions?" After you do, then come back and tell us just how you think we should mount a serious assault on Iran.
If Mr. Marshall had bothered to click on the above link (to my post,
EXTERMINATE THE ROOT OF TERRORISM, NOT ONLY THE BRANCHES...) in my comment, he would see the following statement:
Don't you think it is time to put the spotlight on the HQ of terrorism - Iran? I believe that it had been a better choice to attack Iran as the first member of the Axis of Evil. (EGO, 06/17/04.)
To clarify my message: Iran should have been the first target instead of Iraq, but as the situation is now, it is time to get busy and move on to the next member of the Axis of Evil. It could be the case that the experts in Pentagon and the military have some kind of master plan, similar to the strategies discussed at InstaPundit:
YESTERDAY, I noted new reports of an Iran/Al Qaeda connection and wondered if skeptics of the Iraq war would be calling for an invasion of Iran. Now, in response to those reports, Brad DeLong writes: "And where is our counterstrike against the Iranian government? It is now, by my count, some 1030 days overdue." (InstaPundit, 07/19/04.)
I went to to the page Mr. Marshall recommended, and found the following information:
Of the 34 combat brigades and Armored Cavalry Regiments in the US Army's active component, some 15 are currently deployed (including the two from the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea), in the process of rotating to and from deployments or having just returned from deployment. (Globalsecurity.org, 07/21/04.)
So, theoretically shouldn't we be able to move 19 troops into Iran? 12 of the 15 brigades are located in Iraq (/SWA = Southwest Asia?).
Bradford Plumer of Mother Jones is agreeing with Mr. Marshall and concludes:
The arguments against full-scale military action are legion. We barely have enough troops to pacify Iraq; invading Iran would be logistically impossible. Even a smaller air strike against Iran's budding nuclear facilities, as Israel has advocated, could prove disastrous. The Iranian government has scattered its nuclear program out around the country, and a partial or unsuccessful Israeli strike would leave Iran poised for nuclear counter-action. (The Foundation for National Progress, 07/22/04.)
What do I know, I am only an "armchair general"... What's your opinion? Which country should be next? Scroll down the page and cast your vote in the EGO poll.
Mr. Marshall has answered my "call to arms" and he has been kind to enter the role as a miltary expert. Here is an excerpt from his analysis:
By the way, I have posted on many blogs the contention that the invasion of Iraq was a massive strategic mistake precisely because it prevents us from now dealing with Iran.
I want to thank Andy Clarkson (The Charlotte Capitalist) for his comment on this post. Here is the last part of his comment:
Do I know the "surround" strategy to be true? Nyet. But to say we should not take down Iran because of some website (globalsecurity.org) is doing exactly what Martin is being accused of -- having opinions without facts. Facts that none of us have unless you are with the CIA or are a defense intelligence expert. In addition, it fails to consider context of what, why, and how.
Martin is right on with the what and why. There are lots of strategies for taking down Iran -- bombing, on the ground, a combo, making best use of pro-freedom/pro-American individuals, etc.
Let's hope the Bush administration comes up with the best how and does it soon.
If you haven't clicked on the trackback link yet, swing by Illustrated Ideas and read Robert Tracy's post, Good Tactics Then. Here is an excerpt:
Strategy and tactics were important then, and they served us well. Today, the enemy has no qualms about living. They will kill and die for the hell of their cause. Today, we must throw traditional strategy and tactics out the window, and just go out and kill. This war is not about gentlemanly arts of war. Just kill the bastards before and as they kill us.