Actually, I was more worried about the second link (military realities one). Granted, that one depends on whether you consider it credible or not, but it's a scary scenario.
I don't necessarily find updating war plans bad but it's a pretty vicious cycle.
On the one hand, it's important to be ready. On the other hand, updating the war plans IMO disrupts the diplomatic process and might actually be the cause of it failing. As in, the more we develop the war plans, the more Iran becomes convinced that we're out to get them and cause regime change. Note when I say Iran, I mean the Iranian leadership. Then they look at North Korea and go, hey, those guys have nuclear weapons and they're not being threatened with invasion.
Iran although it has capabilities to cause major damage to US based on the second link can't really compete all that much on a conventional basis (tanks, planes etc), making nuclear weapons cost-effective. I'm sure their frantic grasp at upgrading and building a military comes from the fact that they think they're a target. I'm also sure some of their leadership is batshit crazy either cause they're just crazy, pissed over the Israel issue (who is not in any sense of the word innocent either), or pissed over American intervention in Iranian affairs (1953: America helps overthrow the democratically elected government, helps install the shah and later arm him).
I do find it ironic that one of the major plans is that we're going to use nuclear weapons to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (That'll send a good message; seriously, I think it will destroy the rationale for people to not proliferate; any two-bit dictator who wants to maintain his regime is going to look to nuclear weapons, which IMO is more destabilizing on the international field; one might argue that the destruction of Iranian facilities would show that it's not worth it. I think it'll show instead that if someone's eventually coming after you, you can either 1) be like Afghanistan and get conquered and overthrown or 2) be like NK and get negotiations - btw, run frantically after Russia and China for allies - even if 3) get bombed due to developing nuclear weapons happens, well you were going to get taken out as in 1 anyway. Might as well go for it.)
I think it's particularly sad considering that Iran had succeeded in adopting a weak but functional constitutional system by World War I (as did the Ottoman Empire for that matter). The invasion of the region by Britain and France with their League of Nation mandate didn't have a good effect on stability and caused a lot of ultra-right nationalism to appear. Of course, the 1953 coup and the installment of the Shah didn't really help.
I'm also worried about the effects of such a war with Iran in the region and on the international scene. The third link is interesting in its posit of a scenario. Regardless though, Iraq's shown the cause and effect pretty clearly I think. I've read that both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty much now breeding grounds for terrorists and that more and more people are joining up esp. as the incidents mount with American troops. I don't want to unduly blame the troops; I'm sure it's a stressful situation and not one I'd personally want to be in. It however doesn't change the fact that there *are* incidents happening and people who might otherwise be inclined toward the US are instead turning anti-US. At the turn of the century (1900s), America was considered to be a benign power and in fact, a natural ally to the indigenous population due to its anti-colonialism tradition, a beacon of hope. Three of the best universities in the ME region were set up by American protestant missionaries and Muslims, Jews, and Christians sent their children there to be educated. The initial involvement of America into Saudi Arabia was seen in a good light; America was supporting the SA, as one of two quasi-independent states in the ME at that time, and decreasing its dependence on imperialist Britain.
Regardless of actual intentions, the invasion of Iran IMO will also give ultra-nationalists more momentum and lend more weight to people who claim that Muslims are discriminated against. And they are already, see US and France. I think the figure of 1.2 billion Muslims is pretty scary already. Although majority Muslim Indonesia is a democracy, it does have an opposition party that's for sharia (the rule of Islam in government) which has established sharia in one of the provinces of Indonesia. What about Pakistan? Pakistan is also majority Muslim. This doesn't even consider the other nation-states in the Middle East. This would be the third country we've invaded. Even those that are neutral needs to be thinking about this. Couple this with our close ties to Israel (we send more money there than to anywhere else) and it doesn't look good for other states in the region.
On an international level, I've already talked briefly about the NPT, but I'm fairly sure it would have an impact on the UN too. The concept of civil society is that riots, rebellions, terrorism happens because those members don't feel invested in the system; that for whatever reason, they're not being listened to. Apply this to the UN. We won't even have a coalition of the willing at this rate which means we'll be invading unilaterally. What does this say about the UN? If you can't trust the UN to solve your disputes or at least air it, you start pulling out and looking to other methods. Granted, the UN is not infallible, but people do look toward it and it provides a forum. The fact that a major member is acting against UN principles undermines it, and this is esp. problematic with regards to other Security Council members. A China that decides to follow the preemptive doctrine? That's not good at all. I think people have mentioned for awhile now that the US military is overreaching. We can't fight on so many fronts. Afghanistan and Iraq are both descending into civil war. We barely have control of either. Pulling more resources from elsewhere leads us to be weak in other places (let's say we pull from Japan; that leaves SK vulnerable as well as Taiwan, not to mention lends more credence to the ultra-nationalists in Japan who want to eliminate Article 9 from their constitution and re-militarize; without the protection we give and promised them, they're at risk; and how would you like a militarized Japan? For that matter, a China who has free reign in East Asia).
Even if we bomb Iran to the stone ages, what then? That doesn't solve the problem (ie why people resort to terrorism in the first place). At the best, it only displaces it and delays the fire.
I don't necessarily find updating war plans bad but it's a pretty vicious cycle.
On the one hand, it's important to be ready. On the other hand, updating the war plans IMO disrupts the diplomatic process and might actually be the cause of it failing. As in, the more we develop the war plans, the more Iran becomes convinced that we're out to get them and cause regime change. Note when I say Iran, I mean the Iranian leadership. Then they look at North Korea and go, hey, those guys have nuclear weapons and they're not being threatened with invasion.
Iran although it has capabilities to cause major damage to US based on the second link can't really compete all that much on a conventional basis (tanks, planes etc), making nuclear weapons cost-effective. I'm sure their frantic grasp at upgrading and building a military comes from the fact that they think they're a target. I'm also sure some of their leadership is batshit crazy either cause they're just crazy, pissed over the Israel issue (who is not in any sense of the word innocent either), or pissed over American intervention in Iranian affairs (1953: America helps overthrow the democratically elected government, helps install the shah and later arm him).
I do find it ironic that one of the major plans is that we're going to use nuclear weapons to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (That'll send a good message; seriously, I think it will destroy the rationale for people to not proliferate; any two-bit dictator who wants to maintain his regime is going to look to nuclear weapons, which IMO is more destabilizing on the international field; one might argue that the destruction of Iranian facilities would show that it's not worth it. I think it'll show instead that if someone's eventually coming after you, you can either 1) be like Afghanistan and get conquered and overthrown or 2) be like NK and get negotiations - btw, run frantically after Russia and China for allies - even if 3) get bombed due to developing nuclear weapons happens, well you were going to get taken out as in 1 anyway. Might as well go for it.)
I think it's particularly sad considering that Iran had succeeded in adopting a weak but functional constitutional system by World War I (as did the Ottoman Empire for that matter). The invasion of the region by Britain and France with their League of Nation mandate didn't have a good effect on stability and caused a lot of ultra-right nationalism to appear. Of course, the 1953 coup and the installment of the Shah didn't really help.
I'm also worried about the effects of such a war with Iran in the region and on the international scene. The third link is interesting in its posit of a scenario. Regardless though, Iraq's shown the cause and effect pretty clearly I think. I've read that both Afghanistan and Iraq are pretty much now breeding grounds for terrorists and that more and more people are joining up esp. as the incidents mount with American troops. I don't want to unduly blame the troops; I'm sure it's a stressful situation and not one I'd personally want to be in. It however doesn't change the fact that there *are* incidents happening and people who might otherwise be inclined toward the US are instead turning anti-US. At the turn of the century (1900s), America was considered to be a benign power and in fact, a natural ally to the indigenous population due to its anti-colonialism tradition, a beacon of hope. Three of the best universities in the ME region were set up by American protestant missionaries and Muslims, Jews, and Christians sent their children there to be educated. The initial involvement of America into Saudi Arabia was seen in a good light; America was supporting the SA, as one of two quasi-independent states in the ME at that time, and decreasing its dependence on imperialist Britain.
Regardless of actual intentions, the invasion of Iran IMO will also give ultra-nationalists more momentum and lend more weight to people who claim that Muslims are discriminated against. And they are already, see US and France. I think the figure of 1.2 billion Muslims is pretty scary already. Although majority Muslim Indonesia is a democracy, it does have an opposition party that's for sharia (the rule of Islam in government) which has established sharia in one of the provinces of Indonesia. What about Pakistan? Pakistan is also majority Muslim. This doesn't even consider the other nation-states in the Middle East. This would be the third country we've invaded. Even those that are neutral needs to be thinking about this. Couple this with our close ties to Israel (we send more money there than to anywhere else) and it doesn't look good for other states in the region.
On an international level, I've already talked briefly about the NPT, but I'm fairly sure it would have an impact on the UN too. The concept of civil society is that riots, rebellions, terrorism happens because those members don't feel invested in the system; that for whatever reason, they're not being listened to. Apply this to the UN. We won't even have a coalition of the willing at this rate which means we'll be invading unilaterally. What does this say about the UN? If you can't trust the UN to solve your disputes or at least air it, you start pulling out and looking to other methods. Granted, the UN is not infallible, but people do look toward it and it provides a forum. The fact that a major member is acting against UN principles undermines it, and this is esp. problematic with regards to other Security Council members. A China that decides to follow the preemptive doctrine? That's not good at all. I think people have mentioned for awhile now that the US military is overreaching. We can't fight on so many fronts. Afghanistan and Iraq are both descending into civil war. We barely have control of either. Pulling more resources from elsewhere leads us to be weak in other places (let's say we pull from Japan; that leaves SK vulnerable as well as Taiwan, not to mention lends more credence to the ultra-nationalists in Japan who want to eliminate Article 9 from their constitution and re-militarize; without the protection we give and promised them, they're at risk; and how would you like a militarized Japan? For that matter, a China who has free reign in East Asia).
Even if we bomb Iran to the stone ages, what then? That doesn't solve the problem (ie why people resort to terrorism in the first place). At the best, it only displaces it and delays the fire.
Quote:Thanks. Free psychoanalysis to boot.
You are letting politics and hatred of a person and a nation cloud your judgement.