Yes, I can discuss much about war, weapons, casualties, and a bit of strategy because I have been there, done that, and survived it and then worked within the DOD, CIA, NATO, and the defense industry for over 43 years all told, about 30 of it relevant to this discussion in my estimation. One gets a certain perspective about the inevitability of taking casualties, or else you simply cannot function in military organizations.

I have worked on direct contracts for the MOD's of Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Kuwait, Nigeria, and Canada as an adviser. I have worked in the analysis design and development of intel systems, command and control systems, weapons systems, naval warships, aircraft and space systems.

Your pitch seems consistently like that of an academic at a preset debate, looking to score nitpicks because you can't really comment on anything else with any authority, except your bleeding heart.

After combat just about everyone involved and everyone that can bring experience to the table, sits back at the home base and discusses how things went, what could have been done better, what the casualties were, and what tactics and strategies we should employ next time out to reduce casualties and, oh by the way, win.

I have been involved in the after action efforts for Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf1 at the request of the military. To tell the truth, such conversations are ongoing long after the fact. What have you done in this regard?

You are out of line.

It is a very safe idea for senior military men to overestimate the probable casualties in a potential situation, isn't it?

I just can't let this one pass. It is very safe for you to talk about "light" casualties when your ass is not getting shot at.

Course you Bushies are big on sending other fellows off to die, the important thing is that you are never at risk, no?

One might point out that GW1 had to be followed by GW2 some decade or so later,

One might point it out, but one would be wrong. GW2 was an entirely unnecessary war based on a false premise. There was no "had to be".

Lo and behold, the total of our casualties didn't reach even 500.

A figure achieved only by claiming an arbitrary and false endpoint for the war. If fact the deaths of our troops are over 4000 and still rising. It is also worth noting that you are not one of the people being shot at.

This has been the hallmark of the left--get out and don't look back. Go home to Fortress America.

Try harder. This is flat out BS.

We have been doing somewhat the same thing in Europe since 1947 or so, and in Korea since the end of that conflict.

Yes, and Western Europe and S Korea were both faced with very real external military threats. They wanted us there. The situation in the Middle East today is different, your comparison is bogus.

Lo and behold, the total of our casualties didn't reach even 500. So much for the analyst's predictions, and the senior staff's opinions. I suppose they have become much, much better at it today, haven't they? Or have they?

It is a very safe idea for senior military men to overestimate the probable casualties in a potential situation, isn't it? The ghost of 'Nam hovers over the Pentagon still.

But, I do believe we should be preparing to hold up our interests in the ME at some cost, including among the steps some forms of prepositioning and basing, while hoping our current war costs for Iraq are reduced massively real soon now.

We have been doing somewhat the same thing in Europe since 1947 or so, and in Korea since the end of that conflict. Perhaps one thing that we could do is reduce our commitments in those two places to near zero.

I do not believe, however, in two things that the current Bush administration does believe in: 1)forcing democracy on Islamic nations such as Iraq; or 2)taking on civil reconstruction, or primary civil construction for that matter, on our tax nickel in those lands. These two things are a major part of your trillion dollars a year.

Helping to secure borders by some means, if only by military goods and humanitarian support, against a major invasion is another matter entirely, such as the border between Iraq and Iran, or Israel and "Palestine".

This is an international problem, not just a US problem, but we do not seem to have an effective International solution via the UN. As Finel says elsewhere, it is a mess.

We have potentially a second area of agreement, and that is whatever the next few years bring, the security costs we may well have to incur will be significant no matter which scenario plays out.

Looking at the gross tradeoffs in the near term, we would have to choose a course with the greatest chance of success and the least cost in lives and treasure, not just for the US, but also for the least impact on the world as well. This moves the ultimate decision as to our course to the political arena, as it should be, and the military will have to salute and get on with it.

I am totally unsurprised by your insistence that senior military officers are not enthusiastic with any scenario that includes putting forces into Iran. That is what they do nine times out of ten, but they usually bow to the civilian leadership when it has been decided to go for insertion, which would be inevitable, in my opinion, in the scenario given here. There are many other scary scenarios to consider as well.

What you appear to avoid are the incremental options and exploitation of existing facilities to enhance our total position in the ME, not just Iran, at a far lower cost than having to rush in, were Conplan XXXX to be the option, within the near term in the ME. I repeat, it is not simply Iran that we should be concerned with.

The idea of taking out an insurance policy at low cost in the situation against the possibility of massive costs and casualties later on somewhere in the ME seems to get lost in the rush to withdraw no matter the exposure.

This has been the hallmark of the left--get out and don't look back. Go home to Fortress America. One might point out that GW1 had to be followed by GW2 some decade or so later, and the costs in lives and treasure spiraled up enormously. Want to bet on the possibility of a GW3 in the next five to ten years, somewhere in the ME? Odds on, in my opinion.

However, takers may well be rare at this moment, considering who won the elections and dominate the decision positions for the nonce. I will give it some time, but not much. Imprudent decisions are not the sole province of Conservatives.

I am not saying my approach is cost free. Indeed, my argument is for starting a long-term process is mitigating the consequences of our commitments and of reducing our commitments. But you are dramatically underestimating the costs of your approach -- in lives, treasure, and geopolitically.

But as I say, good luck with it. You want to justify our presence on the ground on the basis of the keeping the option of occupying a big chunk of Iran? Go ahead. As I say, you won't find many takers.

Meanwhile, back in our world today, we have some existence problems.

As I said to Finel, whether this scenario is taken to heart or not is a matter of indifference to me; others have assumed the mantle, and what will be, will be. I do know that much similar--even near identical-- work has been performed in depth in DOD in the past. Whether it still has any significant influence or not is totally unknown to me. Politics trumps logic all too often, especially in these days, and in the days to come.

Whether I convince you or not, or anyone else, is neither here nor there. The "scary scenario", which is not in its essence any invention of mine, still sits there demanding adequate answers, not punting or deriding it as Finel and you have done.

My pointing out the origins of the 9/11 disaster was simply a reminder of how far Muslims can go in their death wish, and with significant support from the homeland, Saudi Arabia. Nothing more, and nothing less.

More nitpicking.

As if you have no knowledge of the use of children by Iran in the war with Iraq, you ask me to do your homework on Google:

http://www.indopedia.org/Iran-Iraq_War.html

Here is one of many references to this horror. You can Google for the rest.

You are proposing an entire ME basing strategy on the basis of a scary scenario that has no actual solution.

My speculation was not an entire ME basing strategy, but a "what if" scenario that has a realistic basis, and whether the scenario is accepted by the US military or, especially, the Obama administration or not, is a matter of indifference to me, and it will either unfold in real life or not in somewhat that way. Should we use this possiblity to affect our deployments? You seem to be totally hung up on reducing our basing whatever the real world shows us. Withdrawal syndrome in full flower.

The first basic premise was that, in the end, Isarel will decide to attack Iran, with or without the US. So take it from there. Basing decisions would merely follow the perceived needs as we see them from that point on.

The end question it proposes is what the hell do we do if that starts to unfold in just that way?

All you can say about it is that we can simply do without Persian Gulf oil (somehow and somewhen!)! Can the rest of the world do without oil from the Gulf? Can we sit by and let the Iranians take down much of the world's economy, including ours even deeper, you must realize? Your answer is a resounding YES! Truly amazing!

You are simply avoiding the hard questions the "scary scenario" poses.

I believe it is the case that much of Iranian oil is on their West border, so by occupying the Southern part of Iran we would virtually control their oil, for the moment, at least.

There is nothing that says we would not, or could not, use that lever to open up their oil flow for them in return for a few key changes, such as destroying, under supervision, their nuclear weapons facilities--any that remain, that is. Far fewer casualties there that way, I would think. With that objective reached, and a few verifiable conditions imposed on their military activities, it would seem possible to simply withdraw--no long term occupation needed, one would hope.

I will comment on what I call your "speculation" that the US Military has not and does not accept this scenario. I believe you will find that the US Military has gamed exactly this scenario, in substantial measure, anyway, and has most likely arrived at some of the hard answers you have studiously avoided.

I am fairly certain they have done so, more than once, and with many more variations than I have thrown out here, in fact, but I do not have the proof of that available to me anymore as I once did.

Perhaps with your comprehensive current accesses, if you indeed have them, you can make the right inquiries and establish the truth. You will have to keep the details to yourself, of course, but it might open your eyes a bit.

The further problem is political, not military, IMO. I do not credit the new administration with having grasped this nettle fully yet, nor do I think you have, either.

I sincerely hope that their eventual answer to what transpires is more humane than starving many nations from their oil needs, bringing down all of the economies and causing misery and death all over the planet.

I think you are deluded, and desperately looking for an excuse for all of the acts of utter barbarity that today's Muslim radicals have perpetrated on the West. IT IS A VERY LONG LIST.

I excuse barbarity by no one. But we do need to attempt to understand the thinking of the people who oppose us look at what motivates them, and understand our own part in this mess.

Is beheading someone on TV an atrocity? Of course it is. What do you have to say to a man in Iraq who's grandmother or child was blown to bits in the "shock and awe" bombings? That their deaths were necessary and part of some greater good? That we deserve forgiveness? That man probably just thinks we are barbarians who killed his loved one. Do you have an argument that would convince him that he is wrong?

After all this typing, you have not made a rational, coherent or convincing case that Iran is somehow different and that they are hell bent on acquiring nukes and putting them to immediate use, hence committing suicide.

Second, you assume that I do not check what I have been told. I do, and I did in this instance. Iran using children in the front lines is a recorded fact, not some propaganda dreamed up on the spot by my contact.

Perhaps you could share the documentation with the rest of us. In any case, all nations commit atrocities in war, including this one.

If you can make sense of the 9/11 group of Saudis as operating totally by themselves with no support from the ME at all, I think you are deluded, and desperately looking for an excuse for all of the acts of utter barbarity that today's Muslim radicals have perpetrated on the West. IT IS A VERY LONG LIST. You sound like a Noam Chomsky fan, or perhaps Ward Churchill. Good luck to you.

Ummm. Where did I say anything about the 9/11 terrorists acting alone? Are your arguments so weak that you are resorting to simply making things up?

I have a news flash for you. Politicians, including Iranian ones, say all sorts of things in speeches. A large portion of it is utter crap strictly for political consumption. In this case, the man in question is not running the country and does not have the power to take Iran to war even if he desperately wanted to. There are also serious questions about the accuracy of the translation that is so often quoted by Rush, Hannity and company.

2) send in ground forces to find at least the AS missiles, which Finel(and his sources)has dubbed absurd, but then, if we do not do this, they still block the Gulf; or

What happens on day 2?

Let's say you do dig em all out... then what? What prevents them from rebuilding?

You are proposing an entire ME basing strategy on the basis of a scary scenario that has no actual solution.

If the choices are occupy a chunk of Iran indefinitely or do without Persian Gulf oil, finding a way to make do without the oil is the easy answer...

Btw, what happens to Iran when it can't export oil either?

Whatever... look, good luck selling your arguments. I'm sure you'll find plenty of takers, though happily not among the U.S. military or the incoming administration.

A speculation:

Israel decides to attack, with or without the US, and consults with us in advance.

We try to discourage them forcefully, but they have set the time and the countdown is underway.

We realize that we will be involved by Iran whatever we do, and decide to support the attack.
The thought of trying to stop the Israelis by force is rejected.

We then realize that we will have to take out the nuclear weapons development sites, long range missile sites, and the anti-shipping missile sites.

To do this, we will have to reduce the command and control and communications facilities and the anti-air defenses surrounding these targets, before we can hit the main targets with relative safety.

The attack proceeds, and we quickly realize, or already know, that we do not know where a large number of the target sites are located or how to find them from the air or satellite surveillance.

What we may have from our continuing recce is a long list of disturbed ground sites that have IR signatures with tracks around them, on the order of ten or twenty thousand or more.

Even then, we have no way to decide that these are the sites we should hit and no others. Hitting all of these sites would require a huge number of sorties, and the results may be far from what is desired.

More holes in the ground appear every hour, especially along the Southern Coast. Are they missile sites or just holes in the ground?

We begin to take fire from these one-shot per site anti-ship missiles, and some serious hits are made. Shipping comes to a halt, with massive economic impact around the world.

Now what? Our best air assault efforts are foiled by massive numbers of simple holes in the ground, and the Gulf is blocked. We must have hit some of the nuclear sites, but we cannot be sure of how many or what the damage will do to their program.

The Gulf remains blocked to oil shipping, and we are taking losses of our combat ships and men in the area. We cannot find and destroy the "loaded anti-ship missile sites" fast enough to ensure the safety of
civilian ships. I have no accurate idea what a week or two of blocked oil shipments would do to the world's economy, but it would be devastating.

At this point, there seem to be three options:

1) don't start this at all in the first place, a decision not strictly under our control which gives the Iranians as many nukes as they can build, and possibly find a way to use;

2) send in ground forces to find at least the AS missiles, which Finel(and his sources)has dubbed absurd, but then, if we do not do this, they still block the Gulf; or

3)continue the air assaults in the hope of doing sufficient damage to halt the ambitions of the Iranian leadership, perhaps with an enlarged target list to include all military installations, and defense-related industrial targets. In this, hoping that the Iranians will cave in before they lose their essential military and industrial base (and undoubtedly, many, many civilian casualties). The Gulf remains blocked.

Given that Israel carries out their move, and we do not forcefully halt them, rather we join them, that reduces the options to #2 or #3, or, I suppose, both, if you choose #2.

So what is the right way to go, Bernard?

Is #2 really absurd? Is it in our political will to stop Israel by force? Many Iranian lives are lost in #2 and #3. So tell me, please? Seems like a punt and pray situation, only we cannot punt!

Second, you assume that I do not check what I have been told. I do, and I did in this instance. Iran using children in the front lines is a recorded fact, not some propaganda dreamed up on the spot by my contact. It was merely the first time I had heard of such barbarity from another Muslim.

Third, you refuse to believe that I understand how many--perhaps the majority--of Muslims do not literally and blindly follow the precepts of Islam to the letter. I hope they do not, but, after all, I have not polled all of the Islamic world in an attempt to find out. Have you? I doubt it.

The hidden threat here, however, is still the coersion that Muslim leaders can exert on any of their followers wherever they are to perform Jihadic actions, or else to lose their families in retribution. This has been reported many times.

However, fourth, you appear not to realize that it is some of the leadership of Islamic states, and some of the leadership of the religion itself that incite and even force their following to acts that are truly reprehensible, or MADE FOR TV mass events.

On the other hand, there are a few Muslim leaders that are rational individuals with whom we can act and build trusting relations, and it is these that we can count upon as friends and allies.

To cut off a person's head on TV in the name of Allah is a mark of absolute depravity in our eyes, and it should be in theirs as well. To enter a crowded restaurant and set off a bomb is an act that you should condemn with all your heart. Yes, it has happened all too often by and at the behest of Muslims in power positions.

It is these Muslims that I condemn, and wish to stop from their inhuman acts by whatever means needed. It is Muslims that threaten to wipe Israel off the map with their new-found weapons that I condemn. It is a minority that runs the Islamic world, and I do not see this power group to be headed in a peaceful direction at all, but, rather, towards conflict with the West, with a few notable exceptions.

If you can make sense of the 9/11 group of Saudis as operating totally by themselves with no support from the ME at all, I think you are deluded, and desperately looking for an excuse for all of the acts of utter barbarity that today's Muslim radicals have perpetrated on the West. IT IS A VERY LONG LIST. You sound like a Noam Chomsky fan, or perhaps Ward Churchill. Good luck to you.

Yet, I hear excuses and deflections, nitpicks and nonsense, not a reaction of horror and a strong determination to stop such actions from you. That is, to me, a terribly flawed attitude and an imperfect analysis of events.