Monday, January 15, 2007

Original Game Plan May Be Back In Play

I recently spoke with a Washington political-military type who speculated that the reason the U.S. refused to send as many troops as Gen. Shinseki recommended for the occupation of Iraq was that the invasion was to be the first act of a hit job in which Iran and Syria were to be toppled soon after.

The thinking was that we needed to keep additional troops fresh for the second and third acts.

As everyone knows, the opening gambit was not the success that the civilian planners envisioned.

Dreams die hard, however, and much evidence is pointing to the malefactors in the administration making every effort now to proceed with their game plan for Iran and Syria.

The confrontation of Iran over their nuclear program has not been as effective as we had hoped it to be, so allegations of Iranian assistance in insurgent attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq are being floated before the American public.

The fact that Shiite Iran is hardly likely to be assisting Sunni insurgents -- who are responsible for most of the attacks on American troops -- is lost on most people. (Remember, many U.S. security officials don't know the difference between the two sects.)

The U.S. seizure of officials and documents from the Iranian Consular office in Irbil was fairly inspired as far as provocations go, knowing that Iran would not have much world sympathy in light of the taking of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.

"The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq," Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, said Sunday. "There's a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive -- that this is a way to get into a spiral with Iran that leads you into conflict. The likely response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around."


That is precisely the point of the effort.

8 Comments:

Blogger Meatball One said...

Nice one

1/15/2007 3:10 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...

M1:

Thanks.

Your early call on Iran looks to be playing out.

Although the carrier group situation is not as minatory as the media is portraying it.

We are still going to be shy of the necessary firepower for longer than everyone thinks.

1/15/2007 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As everyone knows, the opening gambit was not the success that the planners envisioned.

Yes, really. What a surprise.

As for opening gambits, wasn't chess invented somewhere in that neck of the woods? and the Iranians might be even better players than the Iraqis...

Dena

1/15/2007 10:30 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...

Dena:

You make a very cogent point.

In games of strategy, numeric superiority of resources does not necessarily ensure a win.

It does pay to be able to look several moves ahead and to plan one's tactics accordingly.

1/16/2007 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Eff...

And your point makes me think that the sad thing for the U.S.(and the whole world) is that we've got the Decider playing chess... and he's someone who has always relied upon superior resources...

Too bad the pawns are real people.

Dena

1/16/2007 10:37 AM  
Blogger Effwit said...

Dena:

And the Decider makes his own rules, i.e. thinking that the pawns can be moved in any direction he dictates.

1/16/2007 10:56 AM  
Blogger Meatball One said...

...fire power not in place yet....Exactement. This will take more than naval assets galore - and so much more than Izzy can credibly saber rattle with. Even these fucks understand that much - this time around.

1/16/2007 1:43 PM  
Blogger Effwit said...

M1:

A difficult task takes a certain amount of time.

An impossible task just takes a little longer.

1/16/2007 2:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home