Sunday, September 2, 2007

Peace, Hope, and Jihadists With Nuclear Bombs

The Times Online is running an article headlined "Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran" today.

Following good, journalistic, reverse-pyramid format, the gist of the article is in the first paragraph, "The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days, according to a national security expert."

The national security expert is Alexis Debat, who spoke a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal.

Debat told the UK newspaper that US military planners had decided: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." Debate added that it was a "very legitimate strategic calculus."

I don't know how mainstream media is handling this yet, but parts of the blogosphere are reacting predictably. Free Republic's post on the article drew comments from the silly
  • "Oh, Yeah? Well, I’m formulating my TWO-day plan!"
  • "Its disinformation. The plan will take one day."
to the thoughtful
  • "An alternative to direct military action would be to continue with the embargoes and keep up the political pressure. I would also encourage the smuggling of electronic communication devices like internet capable laptops into Iran. By educating the youth, who do not remember the cruelty of the Shah, only the cruelty of the Ayatollah, the stage will be set for a new revolution."
  • "Airstrikes like these would be too good to be true; therefore, this story is probably just psy-ops. Especially since the source is identified. If it were an anonymous source, like those that the NY Slimes relies on, I’d give it more credibility."
(I said thoughtful, not polite!)

On the other hand, there's yesterday's post in a rather carefully anonymous blog called:

"Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq (The Obsessive Compulsive's Guide to the Middle East)"

"While the Middle East takes a licking, we keep on ticking: Al Bintein Mudawenetein"

This blog's September 1, 2007 post title is "9/1/07 Meanwhile in the U.S. -- documenting another day of crimes by the American regime.," by "Catholic Sunni Shia." It's a collection of headlines with blurbs . The bomb-Iran headline is in bold. The headlines:
  • "Marine killed five unarmed Iraqi men"
  • "Marine tells of order to execute Haditha women and children"
  • "U.S. Military Censors ThinkProgress"
  • "Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog'"
  • "As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Legacy"
  • "New McCain Push on War, His Candidacy"
  • "UPI Poll: U.S. energy source less secure"
  • "Civilian prisons coming soon to U.S. Army base near you"
  • "Victims of National Security Injustice, The Tragic Ordeal of the Cuban Five"
  • "Wives of Saudi militancy suspects want public trial"
  • "Pentagon 'Three-Day Blitz' Plan For Iran"
  • "USA equipping a private army in preparation for an invasion of Venezuela"
  • "'They wanted them poor niggers out of there.'" (don't blame me: that's what was in the post)
That reminds me of my seventies college experience: and the eighties one, too.

(I did a little checking, and found that "Meanwhile in Palestine and Iraq etc." seems to have used a Duluth, Minnesota-based service: Do a "who is" request for, if you're curious. InBlog's purported purpose is to address blogosphere censorship: "Is your blog blocked in India, Pakistan, Iran or China? If Yes then you can still access your blog anytime using inblogs free Blog Gateway." - That's a whole different topic.)

So What?

As usual, I'd appreciate it if people would think before they wrote. (I'd also like a million dollars, tax-free, but that's not going to happen, either.)

More to the point, I'd be dismayed if the Pentagon planners didn't have contingency plans for obliterating the Iranian military.

I'd also be dismayed to discover that they hadn't planned for re-taking San Diego after its capture by hostile forces, and any number of other more-or-less probable scenarios.
  • That's what they're supposed to do
  • That's what any responsible military organization is supposed to do
  • Just because a plan exists, doesn't mean its going to be executed
Unhappily, right now Iran has a nuclear program. The only assurance that it isn't being used to produce usable nuclear weapons is the word of the religious fanatics who run Iran.

Personally, I'd rather have some options other than hoping that the Iranian leaders are more reasonable, open-minded, and tolerant than they were back in 1979, when they broke into the American embassy in Tehran, and held hostages for 444 days.


Brigid said...

One word: OI.

Oh, and I think you meant "retaking OF San Diego". The operative word is missing. ^^;

Brian H. Gill said...


Correction made.

"the retaking of San Diego" was my original draft. I'd intended to remove both "of" and "the" - more attention to detail, and more sleep, are indicated.

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.