Invading and occupying Iran would be lunacy.

But bombing their military and nuclear sites might be inevitable.

Or "letting" Israel do it might be better still, however, I think this time we have to truly d our best to marshall world, in particular European, pressure to "help" Iran see that the current path is not in their best long-term interest

the one good thing to see in this push through fallujah was the addition of several thousand iraqi troops along side our folks...that's a step in the right direction for sure!

As far as the land we gained in the mexican war...if the movie I watched the other night is just a little historically acurate, then Santa Anna gave up Texas to save his own head...

I agree Andy, I hope it means we are getting smarter about the politics of the situation, which at this point is just as important as the military

Except, andy, for the Iraqi troops who were no shows and runaways.

That a few remained will probably help harden the opposition to the occupation, as will the conversion to rubble of more areas of Fallujah, not to mention the deaths of even more civilians.

But hey, it was a great idea to invade Iraq - just oh so super foreign policy - and there will always be collateral damage, right?

One other thing: the Council on Foreign Relations has connections to Dick Cheney, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and some neoconservatives.

Just a bias warning.

thanks hal, important point, but everyone has connections to something and vice versa

Not everyone connects to Max Boot, though.

it should also be stated that these were Mead's own opinions stated in interview format: he was not representing COFR

Of course.

Just as Max Boot, who is listed on the staff of the Council, often states his own opinions rather than those of any particular organziatin with which he is associated.

They're neocons, Eric, and Mead's "own" opinions obviously have a neocon bias on foreign policy.

Hell, you can tell that just from reading them.

perhaps, but the term "neocon" doesn't have nearly the freight nor much of the pejorative meaning for me that it does for you

Sure, but thou and I aren't the only ones reading this material.

"to make it absolutely clear to any and all observers in the Islamic world that we may no longer be perceived as "weak," and at a minimum, that crucial mission has been accomplished."

That may be true in a short-term, realpolitik sense - cf. Mead's points about Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, and also witness Libya's voluntary de-nuking. But the longer it takes to pacify Iraq, the more this reputation of strength will be squandered. And besides, the moderate Middle Eastern heads of state aren't the enemy. That Musharraf is still standing is a good sign... but I'd be interested to see some real evidence that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are in fact clamping down on terrorist cells in their midst in a meaningful way. I hope we don't have to wait to find out who is nurturing the new generation of Al Qaeda until we find the charred passports of the perpetrators of the next 9/11.

updated with Pollack editorial on Iran

surely part of the problem with iran is paranoia?
think about it:
all the big military powers that you either don't like or at least are highly suspicious of, have substantial nuclear armaments. You've already seen two countries in a similar position get invaded, with threats to others. What would be the best deterrant against you getting invaded?
just get your own nuclear armament.

I dunno how much the US and UK are working towards reducing the numbers of nukes they have ready to use, but perhaps they should be more public about it (however little they are doing) just to show countries like Iran that they *are* doing it.

I dunno how much the US and UK are working towards reducing the numbers of nukes they have ready to use, but perhaps they should be more public about it (however little they are doing) just to show countries like Iran that they *are* doing it.

Actually I think the U.S. is increasing their nuclear stockpile.

as Pollack says the key at this point is convincing - via the use of carrots and sticks - Iran (and whoever) that it is not worth their while nor in their best interests to defy the international community and develop nuclear weapons - not easy, but necessary

RE: Preemptive attack on Iran...I think that Israel would attempt to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities more quickly than would we, but that would still put us in the regrettable position of 'allowing' them to do so.

Given the decentralized, civicly entrenched and subterranean nature of most of Iran's facilities, an airstrike such as on Osirak in '81 would likely be completely untenable.

Indeed, it might take a nuke to stop a nuke, and that's not a scenario that I want anything to do with (although the alternative *might* be worse).

Bunker busting nuclear bombs, which theoretically 'burrow' before detonation so as to wreak more underground havoc and limit fallout, have been discussed as an answer to this solution, but the risk of fallout is way too high at this point to be conceived of as anything but a pipe dream.

The development of these weapons begs the question: is it worth it to use nuclear weapons even if casualties would likely be equivalent to those generated by traditional explosives, or does the mere use of nuclear force constitute an inherent danger to societal stability irrespective of the casualty count?

I would say it's a psycho-social barrier that goes far beyond relative body count

jadester-
You'd think that, but the situation is slightly more complex than just 'missile envy'.
Back around 1986, when Iran began seriously investigating nuclear weaponry, they vowed that they'd *test* any devices on Israel, not their own soil.
To Israel, its an act of war for them to even develop the technology.

General comment: Its interesting to me that Europe as a whole could not be brought on board when faced with a global insurgency, but are involved when faced with proliferation- yet they don't see the connection betwixt the two.