WWIII: The World Finally Challenges the United States?

Napoleon and Hitler Revisited: America's Convoluted Logic Over Iran and Iraq

Congress needs to act to prevent the President from making the same mistake as Hitler and Napoleon: Use of combat forces well beyond what they were capable of supporting, in theaters well beyond what are supportable with resources or the necessary support structures.

- -

In 2003, when US ground forces were on the Iraqi border in Kuwait, some argued that its time for US to use them. The US military was itching to get into Iraq and end this. Despite no credible demonstration the problems identified in Iraq have been addressed, the same momentum is itching to expand combat operations in Iran.

This is reckless use of American combat forces, is illegal, and no nation is required to remain silent or a passive observer. If the US attacks Iran, the US may -- as did Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor -- awaken the world to wage a World War against the United States.

The error is to use the world's reasonable opposition to this non-sense as evidence the United States is right; or that the American people must support what is folly, unlawful, and reckless. America is in 2007, like Japan and Germany were in WWII, wrong and isolated. Congress need to act as a circuit breaker before America crosses the Iranian border. Combat forces have pentrated Iranian airspace. It may not be too late before crossing the Rubicon.

Will Congress act before the President might be removed from office by force in the first American military coup?

* * *

This isn't news: More examples of same Iraq-like non-sense, but applied differently: To Iran.

The Bad Plan Was Not Coordianted

Put aside the politics of planning for an Iran invasion. Consider the known problem with the planning in Iraq: The President and Patreaus are supporting soemthing which senior PEntagon planners have not reviewed. Hegel:

I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even team B'ed this plan. Ref

Team-B-planning means to have another look; and do risk assessments with a red-team, whose goal is to look at options, attempt to defeat the original plan, and point out the flaws which need to be remedied. [Analogy: Hitler independently invaded Russia, without coordinating his plan with his own military.] There are two problems:

A. There has been no scrub of the orignal plan; and

B. The planners required to do this review haven't been briefed to beging their analysis.

Translation: Civilians, outside Cent C0M have pointed out the flaws; military planners would find more problems. The President ignored his planners in Iraq the first tiem, prompting We the People to throw the GOP out of the Congressioanl leadership. And the President is not being openly attacked on the political stage for what reason? [Answer: No credible reason other than a fear of a needed confrontation.]

The error is to [a] ignore the bad plan; and [b] shift attention to the "lack of unity", implicitly arguing, "We need to have unity on a bad plan"; as opposed to entertaining debate -- different views -- explore our options.Ref Compelling Americans to have unity over an honest debate is teh same non-sense we had in teh wake of Sept 2001 and on the eve of the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The US government wants to be united in its stupidity and has not learned the lessons of the Iraq debate.

* * *

Weapons: Russia and Iran

Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way. One does not address nearby battle management problems by extending the order of battle. Using the convoluted argument over Iran -- that because Iran is supporting Hezbollah against Israeli abuses; therefore the US should attack Iran -- where's the US plan to attack Russia over this?

The US has failed to credibly demonstrate an ability to conduct combined combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Extending the order of battle into Iran would not solve, but be constrained by, the self-evident American problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the US argues that Iranian support for lawful action against illegal US-Israeli actions warrants US attacks, Congress must ask where this is going to end: Despite insufficient resources, as provided to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US proposed to wage combat in Iran.

__ Why should anyone believe the real resource constraints that exist with Iraq and Afghanistan will be solved?

__ If the US is going to attack Iran for them lawfully doing what the US has done -- waging illegal warfare in Iraq -- what is the plan of Congress to ask the President about his plans to attack Russia?

___ Given the problems of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, how does the US credibly argue it can sustain combat operations in either Iran or Russia?

___ There's been no coordination on the Iraq plan; why should anyone believe there's been any needed coordination on military plans to attack either Iran or Russia?

___ Why is the US talking about attacking Iran for things Iran has done -- exporting weapons -- but the US is not willing to admit the expanded combat operations plan that exists for an intervention in Russia through Georgia?

* * *

Patraeus Joins the Delusional

Patraeus is asking for something that does not exist; has not been supported, and the US has shown no ability to provide:

"I believe this plan can succeed if in fact all of those enablers and all the rest of the assistance is provided," Petraeus said, adding that interagency help for the war effort "needs to be substantially more robust than it is." Ref h / t

The US commander is saying that, despite five [5] years after the "big event" of Sept 2001, the US still has not sufficient interagency support to fight the incorrectly-defined war in Iraq; yet wants the public to support this momentum, despite not understanding the problem; while the US plans to apply the same flawed planning model [a disconnect between the resources, and real problem] into a third combat zone: Iran.

This is absurd.

* * *

Iraqi Leadership Convoluted

One sign of a problem is when the leadership points the options as either-or; but there's no real difference, while ignoring the other options. Consider this Iraqi leader quote:

So this, I think, creates a very complex problem for the Iraqi government, because either you accept the American security agenda and see yourself as part of it—in which case you have to take whatever repercussions emerge from that, including perhaps greater escalation in the domestic level of violence and instability—or you accept the fact that the United States may prevail in this confrontation with Iran, in which case a new a political landscape is drawn for the Middle East.Ref

The problem with the argument is both options in the either-or construct presume the US is part of the solution; and that there are no other options.

Reconsider the either-or argument presented: Either you accept the US security agenda; or you accept that the US security agenda may prevail. Either way, the common element -- asserted, without proof -- that all options involve the US security agenda regardless the American inability to see that through.

* * *

Meaningless Pledges: The GOP POsitions Are Meaningless

Here's a comment at Greenwald: Ref: What happened to the DNC victory in November 2006; and why are We the People being ignored? This non-sense should be challenged not legitimized.

That the GOP may or may not support something -- as it relates to Iran -- is meaningless. The US President is going to do it anyway, even if Congress opposes him.

* * *

Assessment

The US is laying the foundation for an Iran invasion. It's absurd to believe that the invasion will be sustainable given the US failure is Iraq:

The US cannot credibly provide resources for a a civil war-insurgency [the two are not the same], and Patreaus is arguing for support for something that is not winnable: The US cannot, unlike Vietnam, impose combat forces on civil combatants. The Vietnam analogy understates the problem. Unlike Vietnam where the US was attempting to impose force on an insurgency; the US is attempting in Iraq to impose force to contain both [a] an insurgency; and [b] a civil war.

Yet, when we look at an insurgency and a civil war as a combined challenge -- this becomes [c] a third-step removed from what Petraeus and the US are planning for. Iraq is neither an insurgency, nor a civil war, but something different: A combined insurgency-civil war, a creature which the President and all Commanders have refused to consider, discuss, or openly acknowledge. There is no plan to deal with Iraq as it is, only as it has been incorrectly defined.
Congers needs to comprehend the problem: Despite the President losing control of Congress, the President has lost control of a coherent US foreign policy, and has no credible plan in place to adjust. The President plans to expand combat operations without facing reality:

A. The resources are not available;

B. The proposed opponent is not required to cooperate;

C. The proposed planning model hopes for what does not exist: Cooperation;

D. There has been no catalyst to change what is failing: Defective leadership;
delusional planning using inadequate resources relative to an incorrectly defined problem; and a change in leadership asking for what the US has been unable to provide this many years after 9-11: Competent, coordinated operations.
Iraq was a war of choice. There is no credible way the US can expand combat operations in Iran, much less have any influence on Russia, as long as the US expands combat operations as recklessly as Napoleon and Hitler.

Unless Congress excuses oversight, and credibly ends the President's continued push for expanded combat recklessness, Congress must be seen as part of the problem: They have a mandate but will not assert the will of We the People: We need leadership, not assent to the same non-sense which put Napoleon and Hitler at risk.