The Partitioning of Iraq enters last Phase,

[charles brough]

Partition is not our government's stated policy but it is inevitable and now part of our government's present (but secret) agenda. The Administration's only way to placate public opinion and prevent a disastrous pull out of American forces in Iraq is to see that the new downtrend continues in the casualty rate of our service men there. The Sunni-Shiite conflict in the Baghdad area is gradually pitting the U.S. and the Sunnis against the Shiite government and army. Just as gradually, the Shiite government will turn to Iran for support. The Sunnis have to rely upon us to counter the Shiite-led directed genocide of Sunnis. The Shiite government wants control of Baghdad and can then cut off the flow of oil money to the Sunni provinces.

Saudi Arabia has become alarmed enough over the growth of Shiite power in Iran and in Iraq that it is clamping down on the flow of Sunni money and operatives into terrorist organizations. It has been increasingly backing the insurgency drift away from killing American servicemen in Iraq and to the killing of Shiites---as well as opposition to the Shiite government. That is why General Patreus is able to show a decline in the number of suicide bomb deaths of American servicemen.

See: MEMRI: Latest News

The main U.S. enemy is Iran. The Administration is working closely with Saudi Arabia and Israel to reduce Iran's growing power and influence. If Iran gains the ability to build atomic missiles, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would also have to develop that ability and are threatening in private to do just that.

So we are being forced to move against the very government we set up in Iraq. By working with us in Iraq to eliminate Al Queda, the Sunnis are turning into our ally as swiftly as the Shiite government there backs away from us and leans toward Iran for support and arms. That is why that government appears to us to be so "incompetent." It's agenda just happens to differ from our own!

When the final stage of partition occurs and the Shiite government of Southern Iraq cuts of its flow of oil money to the Sunni state-in-being, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will come up with the funds to keep the new state functioning. We will be forced to drive out the Iraqi army and help the Sunnis gain control over the Shiite areas of the province. Iraq will then be in a partitioned state.

Events are moving swiftly. Already, we can expect war with Iran within the next six months. The flight of Israel war planes over Syria is a prelude. The jets were testing Syrian and Iranian responses. We have an immense naval armada in the Gulf. Israel wants this war more than even President Bush and is willing to start it itself if it needs to in order to drag us into it.

The decline of our servicemen deaths, the growing threat of Iran, and the resolution of the occupation through partitioning can logically be expected to restore President Bush's popularity and make the Democratic Congress look like a bunch of chickens who were willing to sink everything just because the public had grown tired of the war!

The timing is all calculated for the 2008 presidential election to come at the height of President Bush's expected recovery of popularity and bring about another republican President into the White House.

[Cedars]

Two weeks ago I spent a few minutes talking to one of the kids friends who just returned from Iraq after 15 or 18 months, as they blew through the house gathering stuff for a small party at the park. He described it as a religious civil war right now and described some of what he was seeing. Lots of fighting between factions without involving our troops. He described it as "they are avoiding engaging the Americans because we will react to an attack on our troops and they dont want that".

[Freddy]

Nice summary Charles! So what about the Kurds in the north? Who will protect them? Civil war in Iraq has always been my prediction. We need to leave Iraq before it becomes all out war between the factions. Iran is dangerous, but I doubt the American people will support another war that Bush leads us into. I cannot imagine Bush regaining political support after nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died for a lie. And still 1/3 of Americans believe Saddam had something to do with 911.

[charles brough]

Freddy, I'll save your response and we can bring up the subject some months ahead and see who turns out to be right! Myself, I think our death toll will keep dropping and that the fickle public will then turn against the Democrats. Everyone was originally for the war when we should never step on Islam, never. We are turning it into a terrorist faith. But there is no way we can get out of Iraq now and have any credibility in the world. Even American tourists would be laughed at abroad and treated badly. American franchise foods in other countries would get no more customers. We would be in retreat everywhere.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by charles brough

But there is no way we can get out of Iraq now and have any credibility in the world. Even American tourists would be laughed at abroad and treated badly.

Hello Charles,

I would have to say that from down under it looks like you have got that the wrong way around. When the 'unthinkable' is only considered by people who think, does that leave the 'thinkable' to those who don't?

After all, what was the advice of all the departing neo-cons before they cut and ran?

[CraigD]

Very interesting analysis. Were it not for the terrible toll in human suffering and death, I’d consider this an engaging game of political speculation and military strategy.

On the subject of strategy, I think there’s a tendency among both civilians and military pros to assume that a US invasion of Iran would closely resemble the 2003 invasion of Iraq, in which the collapsing Iraqi military’s defense was ineffective. I don’t believe this expectation is realistic – like it’s economy and government, Iran’s military is much more organized and capable. While a US invasion would, I think, be successful, it would be much more costly – especially when one considers that Iran has a small but modern non-nuclear submarine fleet, capable of retaliation against the US surface navy. A single effective attack on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier could result in an immediate 5,000 combat deaths, an event not suffered by the US navy since WWII.

[charles brough]

craig, I was not thinking of an invasion of Iran. What the Administration plans, I believe, is a purely air and naval war. We would try to bomb their nuclear facilities. When we ultimately fail to satisfy ourselves that we have succeeded, we threaten to bomb the country's infra sctructure until they give in to inspection demands. They refuse of course, and we then tear down the country. When they still refuse, we use nuclear bunker busters. We would suffer few casualties and appear, to the American public, to be merely esculating because of Iran's intransigence. All along, the Right Wing would be expecting a regime change there which, of course, would not happen.

[Buffy]

So you see no possible negative consequences to bombing Iran into submission?

Art of war,
Buffy

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by charles brough

craig, I was not thinking of an invasion of Iran. What the Administration plans, I believe, is a purely air and naval war. We would try to bomb…

Charles, your suspicions about the Bush administration’s plans seem to me reasonable, though beyond my ability to confirm or deny.

Originally Posted by charles brough

… We would suffer few casualties and appear, to the American public, to be merely esculating because of Iran's intransigence.

The main point I’m trying to make is that the expectation of minimal US casualties in any sort of “hot, shooting war” with Iran is far from the given that many or most people assume. Though an inventory of US military resources and a comparison of US and Iranian economic strength make it clear, IMHO, that the US could ultimately succeed in crippling Iran’s production and civil infrastructure, or in invading and toppling its central government, I don’t think such a “victory” would be nearly as one-sided as the Iraq invasion.

Though nowhere near at parity with the US, Iran has a significant number of modern fighter aircraft and armaments, and, by regional standards, high-quality pilots for them. A greater threat, however, as I mentioned above, might be their small fleet of modern, stealthy submarines. Modern naval simulation suggests that even the best antisubmarine defenses are not entirely effective against such vessels, and that even the best defended parts of the US surface fleet – its carriers – are vulnerable. Such a kill has the potential to exceed the greatest US naval losses of life of WWII – note that a single Nimitz-class carrier carries more than twice the number of human beings killed in the entire 12/7/1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Note also the potential of land and ship fired anti-ship missles. The modern navies of both the US (USS Stark, 5/17/87, by Iraq) and the UK (HMS Sheffield 5/2/1982 and HMS Glamorgan 6/11/1982, by Argentina) have suffered near-sinkings from such weapons. I don’t have a reasonable assessment of the capability of Iran in this area, but suspect it’s effectively superior to that of Iraq or Argentina in the 1980s.

While in no way intending to suggest that the US military is not very well trained and prepared, nor its strategists and tacticians well aware of the risks I describe, the fact remains that more than a generation has passed since its navy an air force fought an enemy capable of effectively striking back. Many people are, I believe, falsely confident in the ability of the US to wage war with few casualties of its own.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by charles brough

But there is no way we can get out of Iraq now and have any credibility in the world. Even American tourists would be laughed at abroad and treated badly. American franchise foods in other countries would get no more customers. We would be in retreat everywhere.

How come the US is buying up Iraqi milita's (so they don't attack US troops) while the civilian death toll is staying the same?

Surely the responsible thing to do would be to plan for the partition of Iraq now, instead of planning to do the partitioning covertly.