[Arktwo] Signs That I See

[Bruce Beach]

Very rarely do I reprint
an article in its entirety -
but I highly recommend
that you read and ponder
the following:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0508/p09s01-coop.htm

The Case for Strikes Against Iran

May 08, 2007
The Christian Science Monitor

Iran's latest defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency says it
all: Further diplomacy has no chance of stopping Iran's nuclear program.
Neither will UN sanctions have any effect.

Unless there is a timely defensive first strike at pertinent elements of
Iran's expanding nuclear infrastructures, it will acquire nuclear weapons.
The consequences would be intolerable and unprecedented.

A nuclear Iran would not resemble any other nuclear power. There could be no
stable "balance of terror" involving that Islamic Republic. Unlike nuclear
threats of the cold war, which were governed by mutual assumptions of
rationality and mutual assured destruction, a world with a nuclear-armed
Iran could explode at any moment. Although it might still seem reasonable to
suggest a postponement of preemption until Iran were more openly nuclear,
the collateral costs of any such delay could be unendurable.

Ideally, a diplomatic settlement with Iran could be taken seriously. But in
the real world, we must compare the price of prompt preemptive action
against Iran with the costs of both: (1) inaction; and (2) delayed military
action. To be sure, all available options are apt to be injurious.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad maintains that his country's nuclear
program is intended only to produce electricity, but there is no plausible
argument or evidence to support this claim. Meanwhile, Mr. Ahmadinejad's
genocidal intentions toward Israel are abundantly clear.

Iran must be stopped immediately from acquiring atomic arms, and this can
only be accomplished through "anticipatory self-defense." Precise defensive
attacks against Iran's nuclear assets would be effective – and they would be
entirely legal.

They would be effective because the US has at its disposal the "McInerney
Plan" (after Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF/ret.). It calls, in part, for
an immediate strike force to hit Iran's nuclear development facilities,
command and control centers, integrated air defenses, selected Air Force and
Navy units, and its Shahab-3 missiles, using more than 2,500 aim points.
Operationally, the United States Air Force is best configured for such a
complex task, but it would not necessarily be impossible for the Israeli Air
Force to execute.

It would be lawful because the US and/or Israel would be acting in
appropriate self-defense. Both countries could act on behalf of the
international community and could do so lawfully without wider approval. The
right of self-defense by forestalling an attack has a long and authoritative
history in international law. In the 1625 classic "On the Law of War and
Peace," Hugo Grotius expresses the enduring principle: "It be lawful to kill
him who is preparing to kill…."

Today, some scholars say that Article 51 of the UN Charter overrides that
right. But international law is not a suicide pact.

We must act very quickly on Iran. Many critics will argue that the expected
consequences of any prompt preemptive strike would be overwhelming,
including greatly expanded terror attacks against assorted Western targets,
and perhaps regional or even global war. Although such dire prospects should
not be dismissed, there is certainly no reason to believe that an American
or Israeli preemption would make them more likely. On the contrary, it seems
far more plausible that defensive strikes would suppress Iranian adventurism
and subversion. Iran's foreign policy is animated by very rigid religious
expectations, and these expectations won't diminish if Iran is allowed to
acquire nuclear weapons.

A more important reservation about preemption involves tactical
difficulties. Due to delays, the success of strikes against certain key
Iranian targets may already be in doubt. Worse, such strikes would probably
entail high civilian casualties because Iran has deliberately placed
sensitive military assets amid civilian populations – an international crime
called "perfidy."

But further delay will only multiply the number of casualties from any
future operation, or – in the worst-case scenario – allow Iran to become
fully nuclear.

• Louis Rene Beres, a professor of international law at Purdue University,
is the author of many works on nuclear strategy.
------------
I think that the above article
is a bit more inclined to speak
towards legalities rather than moralities -
but be that as it may -
I think that the article presents
the true conservative (non-political) opinion
in the US and Israel -
and hence is the true barometer of present policy
in those countries.

I note also that the article
makes no mention of using 'little' nukes -
or the repercussions thereof -
and makes but the most veiled reference
as to what the response of Russia may be.

----------
The American Army is broken.
That is an opinion that has been stated -
by several retired US generals.
(Active generals are not permitted
to express such opinions.)

But -
I can tell you that it is so -
from my own experience.
I spent a year in the arctic.
My wife at the time lived in Atlanta -
and I said it would have been much more pleasant
to have spent the year
in the Atlanta Federal Prison.
At least there she could have come
and visited me each month.

As it was I had to sit for hours on end
in a little radio hut -
with others waiting for the 'skip'
of the radio spectrum to open -
so that we could get link to a Ham
in the US who could patch us through
for a few minutes chat over the phone
to our families.
Only managed to do it
two or three times.

Everyone was anxious for the others to keep
their conversations short -
before the spectrum shut down -
and they wouldn't get to make
what was a static broken up call.
At least today -
the military has the Internet and blogs -
although that is now being somewhat curtailed.

In the arctic -
we could never go outside -
except briefly -
to go from one building to another,
and I suspect the continuous
heat, sand, and grit during the summer
is just as bad in the Middle East.

At least it is not so bad -
in the Middle East but that people
actually live there -
and it is not so bad for the locals
because they have their families there
but the guys on patrol often  have to carry
many pounds of body armour and weapons.

Some people point out -
that the threat of death from gunfire
is no greater than in Washington D.C.
and that the current fatality rate for US soldiers
is actually less than the historical
fatality rate for US Presidents.

I often receive pictures of US soldiers
surrounded by smiling local children.
But actually -
Americans aren't very popular there.
Suppose that it were the other way around
and you personally walked the streets of the US -
that were guarded by soldiers
of a distinguishable different appearance -
who spoke a different language -
who spoke to you in contempt -
who had a different religion and culture.
You might not love them.

A survey made late last year -
but withheld from release by the Pentagon -
showed that US troop ethics has greatly decreased.
Forty percent would not report
the shooting of a civilian
by a member of their corp.
A large number supported the use of torture.
Many admitted to having cursed
and having struck civilians.

The problem is that
it is a 360 degree war.
They can't tell the enemy from the friendlies.
It is a hell hole -
and they only want to go home.
None of them are asking that their tour of duty
be extended.

When I was in the arctic -
we were forbidden to mark calendars
showing our days remaining.
I made strings of paperclips
and hung them from my desk.
Each day I would remove one.
Be sure -
that in some way each soldier
is counting the days.

I had signed up for four years -
and it quite aggravated me -
when arbitrarily the government
extended my duty to an additional 4 years
in the reserve.
I can tell you -
that it aggravates the present soldiers
when they are put under 'stop loss'.

The Army plan -
when they went in -
was that they would spend three years
in camp in the US
for each year overseas -
(sometimes at a soft overseas assignment -
not always in Iraq.)

Now -
the US has extended the overseas duty tour
to 15 months -
(you would have to be adding paperclips -
to know how you felt about that)
and rotation is 1 year in the US
instead of three -
and you would have to also ask
your wife and kids
what they thought about that
as a future life.

Nope.
Broken.
As shown
by the US occupiers individual attitude
towards the civilians in their 'host' country.
As shown
by the desire of the American public
to get them out of there.
As shown
by the actions of Congress
in response to the American public.

Those presently in power -
who wish to execute and achieve
their policy
regarding the Middle East -
have to do it now -
because they are leaving.
Leaving Iraq.
Leaving Office.
Leaving Power.

It does create a shortened timeframe.

Others are leaving also.
Russia is getting its people out of Iran.
Haliburton is getting its people out of Iran.
Embassies are getting their people out of Iran.
The UN and relief organizations
are getting their people
out of the surrounding area.
Iraqi leaders are getting out of Baghdad.
Iraqi civilians are getting out of Iraq.

WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) -- U.S. House Armed
Service Committee Chairman Ike Skelton Monday urged
the Iraqi parliament to cancel its planned summer
recess.

Lots of getting out.
Time to get out of Dodge.

Peace and love,
Bruce
DawnSayer@webpal.org