Article

2006-10-31 Arabia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2006-10-31 05:59|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 One more reason to turn Iran into glass.

Posted by Icerigger 2006-10-31 07:46|| 2006-10-31 07:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Iran's strategic objectives are clear, and since they are known, what they would have to do in their efforts to achieve them are also clear.

1) They want the US out of the ME. It is critical to everything else.

2) They want military hegemony in the region, after the US is gone. This especially now means to undermine those parts of the Iraqi military that could threaten them. Particularly their air power.

3) They want to creat a Shia crescent from Lebanon to Pakistan. This is not territorial conquest but the creation and support of Shia domination throughout that crescent, religiously led from Iran.

4) Israel is seen as a way to manipulate the US, but other than that, as not of critical importance to attack. They estimate gradualism could destroy Israel--overwhelming numbers of Moslems shouldering out the Jews.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-31 08:05|| 2006-10-31 08:05|| Front Page Top

#3 I agree with all but #4 Moose. I think it's all about Israel. Iran wants to be the liberator of Israel. I think they want that more than they want us out of the area.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-10-31 08:43|| 2006-10-31 08:43|| Front Page Top

#4 I also agree with Moose's first three points. Destroying Israel, however, is not "the whole thing". Destroying Israel is a way for the Iranians to get bragging rights and elevated prestige. Witness the puffing of Hezbollah, and the added caution everyone displays toward them and their backer, Iran. The Israeli government screwed up bigtime by not decisively defeating Hezbollah (although I must note that, given Arab, Euro, and anti-semitic liberal sentiments, the survival of anything bigger than a 5 man cell would have been hailed as a "victory" for Hezbollah out of principle.)

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-10-31 09:59|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-10-31 09:59|| Front Page Top

#5 Make Kuwait our 51st state!

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-10-31 10:54|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2006-10-31 10:54|| Front Page Top

#6 The Iranians have so much as stated that they think they can bide their time with Israel, as long as the US is out of the picture.

This is explainable by the shocking misconceptions that exist in the Moslem world both about Israel and the US. I got an eye-opener about it when talking some years ago to a Lebanese electronics engineer.

He was convinced that the US spent half of its defense budget supporting Israel! He went on to say that if the US would just stop doing this, then Israel would collapse overnight. So, in essense, everything that Israel did was the US's fault.

Though I tried to convince him otherwise, he would not, in fact, he could not accept the notion that most of the Israeli army had been created by the Israelis themselves, and that they only get a tiny amount of money from the US.

And most of all, that the USs military industrial complex was so vast that we had damn near enough equipment to invade another planet. (This was at the height of Reagan's grand armee.)

He was almost to the point of sticking his fingers in his ears and going "La-la-la-la-la! I can't hear you!", in his state of denial.

From that point on, I have had to re-evaluate any assumptions I have about their intentions, based on what may be utter ignorance about their, and our, situations.

For example, this is why Saddam's "Mother of all battles" comment, which seemed ludicrous to us, made perfect sense in the ME. They not only assumed, but they *had* to believe, that the enormous Iraqi army was more than a match for the US.

And this is why Iran is so confident that without the US, Israel will just fold up and leave.

Imbecilic, but true.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-31 10:57|| 2006-10-31 10:57|| Front Page Top

#7 Moose,

I've never been to the Sandbox, but I've heard enough from those who have and seen enough of the Middle Easterners on TV to believe you are right. There is only one argument that will convince these folks they are wrong. Sherman's.

The big debate is how soon we give it to them. The problem is no one in Ammerica wants to do it. So we've told the FRAM guy, "We'll pay you later." and it's going to be a big bill.

What the Middle East doesn't realize is that they're going to be the one's who pick up most of the tab. They're going to lose 10%± of their total population against less than <0.1% troop losses for our side. They just can't conceive what they're up against because we haven't taken the gloves off for almost 60 years. And we've gotten a lot better in the mean time.

I just finished re-reading van Creveld's Supplying War. These people just don't understand what the U. S. military really is really capable of that no other force in military history has even been remotely capable of. I doubt many Americans really understand just how powerful the military is. But it looks like they're all going to find out. Later rather than sooner.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-31 11:23|| 2006-10-31 11:23|| Front Page Top

#8 That matches up perfectly with the Saudis I talked to, 'Moose. There is a huge blind spot, indoctrinated from birth, regards Israel and the "Paleos", and no amount of logic or proof can get past it.

Posted by .com 2006-10-31 11:23|| 2006-10-31 11:23|| Front Page Top

#9 --The problem is no one in Ammerica wants to do it. --

Yet.

But it's there, in the back of our mind.

To make it effective, it's going to have to be more than 10%. It took the Japs 2 bombs to get the message.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-10-31 11:44|| 2006-10-31 11:44|| Front Page Top

#10 #9 - also remember the Empire of Japan had one leader, and the Japanese would follow his orders. After the first 2 bombs, if Hirohito had been deposed, or had a substantial amount of the Japanese military put up resistance, there would have been more atom bombings of the Japanese home islands. The mood of the US after the battle for Okinawa was such that the country would have most likely agreed to de-populate those islands altogether had they not surrendered.

Posted by Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-10-31 12:19|| 2006-10-31 12:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Speaking of Japan. I read an autobiography of Akiro Kurisawa the director. A very liberal and western oriented fellow. He managed to avoid military service but at one point he casually mentioned the great suicide they all planned rather than be conquered. If the emporer ordered it they were all ready. He simply wanted to marry this girl so he wouldn't suicide single. I can't tell you how chilling it was reading that. He just accepted it. Emporer orders so it goes.

Perhaps if the US history classes mentioned the entire extinction of the Japanese race was the alternative to the two nuclear bombs people might have a different perspective on the right and wrong of the thing.

Perhaps the same applies to the middle east crisis in ways we haven't considered yet.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-10-31 13:18|| 2006-10-31 13:18|| Front Page Top

#12 #10: "there would have been more atom bombings of the Japanese home islands"

Don't think so - at least not right away. IIUC, we had only the two bombs at that time.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-10-31 13:22|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-10-31 13:22|| Front Page Top

#13 Though estimates are all over the board, it seems likely neither Japan nor Germany saw 10% casualties amongst the whole population in WW2, so 10%± would be a new high on a much bigger population base. It would leave no one untouched. The Soviet Union probably suffered around 15% total, as did Poland.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-31 13:29|| 2006-10-31 13:29|| Front Page Top

#14 Japan lost about 2.5% of it's population. If the home islands were invaded, that would have gone up to 20% or more.

Posted by ed 2006-10-31 13:47|| 2006-10-31 13:47|| Front Page Top

#15 For example, this is why Saddam's "Mother of all battles" comment, which seemed ludicrous to us, made perfect sense in the ME. They not only assumed, but they *had* to believe, that the enormous Iraqi army was more than a match for the US.

Due to its religious nature the MME (Muslim Middle East) propaganda machine puts even the Soviet communists to shame. The indoctrination is complete and total with wholehearted participation by the masses.

Killing off the spittle spewing clerics should be one of our top priorities. A top-down policy of snuffing these ideological programmers would yield results that only the takeover of several MME countries could provide. I can only assume that Washington DC continues to be mired in some sense of cultural relativism whereby Islam and its jihadist clergy still retain privileged status as a religion. Reversing this perception is critical to any substantial progress in the War on Terrorism.

Don't think so - at least not right away. IIUC, we had only the two bombs at that time.

Please read Richard Rhodes' book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb". This superb account of the Manhattan Project is far more readable than previous books on the subject. He mentions how we used two nuclear weapons against Japan specifically to convince them that we were in production mode. (The fact that Nagasaki was home to Mitsubishi - maker of the torpedos that sank so many of our ships at Pearl - had nothing to do with it.) This was viewed as essential due to the industrial nature of Japan's war machine. Rhodes goes on to say that we were prepared to produce several more atomic bombs, if needed, to bring down our Asian enemy.

Back on topic: Breaking Iran's spine must happen immediately. We must force them to be so busy nursing their wounds that they do not have the time to knit one uranium atom to another or even shake their fist at Israel. If they do shake their fist at Israel, we need to cut it off.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-31 14:37|| 2006-10-31 14:37|| Front Page Top

#16 We may not have hit the Japanese home islands quickly with more nukes, but we were going to bug spray them with chemical weapons. If you get the chance, read the recently declassified American plans for the home islands invasion approved by Truman.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-10-31 14:38|| 2006-10-31 14:38|| Front Page Top

#17 Werent fire bombings much more devistating than the big bombs? That always seems to be forgotten since its not as flashy as nukes.

Posted by bool 2006-10-31 15:13|| 2006-10-31 15:13|| Front Page Top

#18 I've always said that we need not do a thing and mother Islam would start trouble to keep us focused on them. This plot by Iran will assure that the US remains in the Persian Gulf region for a long, long time. These people are just dumb, and they always make premature moves.

Posted by wxjames 2006-10-31 15:56|| 2006-10-31 15:56|| Front Page Top

#19 Werent fire bombings much more devistating than the big bombs?

Yes, the carpet bombing produced tremendous firestorms that burned concrete and created tornado strength winds at temperatures of hundreds of degrees. The fatalities were far greater than either of the nuclear attacks and the destruction much more widespread.

From Wikipedia:

After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft.

A firestorm is created as a result of the "chimney effect" as the heat of the original fire draws in more and more of the surrounding air. This draft can be quickly increased if a low level jet stream exists over or near the fire, or when an atmospheric temperature inversion cap is pierced by it. As the updraft mushrooms, strong gusty winds develop around the fire, directed inward. This would seem to prevent the firestorm from spreading on the wind, but for the fact that tremendous turbulence is also created by the strong updraft which causes the strong surface inflow winds to change direction erratically. This wind shear is capable of producing small tornadoes or dust devils which can also dart around erratically, damage or destroy houses and buildings, and quickly spread the fire to areas outside the central area of the fire.
The greater draft of a firestorm draws in greater quantities of oxygen which significantly increases combustion, thereby also substantially increasing the production of heat. The intense heat of a firestorm manifests largely as radiated heat (infrared radiation) which ignites flammable material at a distance ahead of the fire itself.

Besides the enormous ash cloud produced by a firestorm, under the right conditions, it can also induce condensation, forming a cloud called a pyrocumulus or "fire cloud". A large pyrocumulus can produce lightning, which can set off further fires.

March 9, 1945 - 120,000 dead Tokyo

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-31 16:19|| 2006-10-31 16:19|| Front Page Top

#20 You're getting awful nostalgic there Zenster. The good old days of Dresden adn Tokyo. I long for the good times once again. And god willing, we will see the armies of good put the marks of their boots and their wheels upon the untamed sands of the east once again.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-10-31 18:26|| 2006-10-31 18:26|| Front Page Top

#21 No Barbara, we had 2 more bombs ready to go, on the 12th and the 15th IIRC. When Japan sued for terms, Truman cancelled them. It's something that the Truman-Was-A-War-Criminal crowd would like to eject into the memory-hole.

Posted by Chinter Flarong 2006-10-31 18:33|| 2006-10-31 18:33|| Front Page Top

#22 Glad to hear it, #21 CF.

Been a loooong time since I was in school. (And yes, we did study that stuff - I was born in 1946.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-10-31 18:52|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-10-31 18:52|| Front Page Top

#23 This plot by Iran will assure that the US remains in the Persian Gulf region for a long, long time. These people are just dumb,

Or truly hoping to provoke a (the) Apocalypse.

Posted by lotp 2006-10-31 19:16|| 2006-10-31 19:16|| Front Page Top

#24 that firestorm is easily evident in a Santa Ana - driven wildfire ....they create their own weather system

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-31 20:16|| 2006-10-31 20:16|| Front Page Top

#25 I think this is a great discussion. No doubt we will destroy Iran if it comes to it. However, we should not hope for this.

The current Iranian leadership does indeed want to eject us from the ME, become a hegemon and usher in a Shia cresent. I agree that, with some notable exceptions, killing the Jews is relatively low on their priority list. Interestingly, BTW, there are still a few Jews in Iran.

Iran is not going to be successful in goal #1. We are not going to leave the region. Rather than a war of anhilation, however, we still have hope that the clerical regime will fall and the Iranian government will become more reasonable.

If this happens, we can in turn talk to them because goals #2 and #3 are not inherrently counter to our interests. The consolidation of a 'Shia crescent' and the relative strengthening of Persian military capability can work to our advantage as long as Iran accepts that goal #1 is not going to happen before we have to kill them all.

In an ideal future, we can be the balancing force playing Shia and Sunni blocks against eachother and hopefully fomenting some degree of civilization in these ill governed places. The emergence of a functional Shia dominated Iraqi state -- or oil rich semi autonomous region or whatever -- and an overthrow of the corrupt mullarchy in Iran are consistent with a favorable manifestation of this strategy. Despite the weakness of the Iraqi government and the Iranian influence on the ground there, we still have hope for both of these outcomes.

What was fascinating this summer was when the Soddies and Egyptians basically greenlighted the Israeli action in Southern Lebanon. Of course, Olmert turned that situation in to a CF, but it shows how Shia strength can work to our advantage, especially when it is clear we are the predominant power in the region. It might not be clear to them right now, but we are, and -- as commenters have noted -- it might be pretty ugly when we have to remind them yet again.

Posted by JAB 2006-10-31 21:02|| 2006-10-31 21:02|| Front Page Top

18:36 Uneating Creresing3908
18:22 Snerese Glater6651
17:29 Shomogum Shineling8027
15:42 Whereng Glosing4148
15:20 Ebbolutch Chineng7733
14:48 Unart Gleamp8448
14:37 FNB
14:08 FNB
12:22 FNB
01:17 FNB
01:00 FNB
00:58 FNB
00:54 FNB
23:55 Secret Master
23:32 FOTSGreg
23:27 FOTSGreg
23:26 Zenster
23:26 Thoth
23:21 Zenster
23:19 FOTSGreg
23:11 Zenster
23:10 Thoth
22:53 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:42 Zenster