Iran and Iraq, Fourteen Questions You Shouldn’t Have Any Trouble Answering.

[madhoosier]

Question; if Bush said that Iraq had to be invaded to end an
imminent threat to the United States posed by Iraq’s weapons
of mass destruction but events proved that to be untrue, then
why should we take him at his word that he needs 50,000 extra
troops in Iraq for a “surge” to restore order when he’s had
three years to do just that, yet at every step he’s done the
freaking opposite?

Question; when has a temporary “surge” of manpower ever been
used as a military tactic in the past to restore order to
anarchy?

Question; are there other contingencies that would require
more American troops in Iraq?

Question; has bombing Iran been on the NeoCons “to do” list
for eight freakin years?

Question; this last Sunday did Newt Gingrich on “Face the
Nation” say at least twice that America is at war with Iran?

Question; are America’s troops over stretched in the Middle
East?

Question; did America recently change position on the
“DeBaathification” of Iraq’s military?

Question; Would the Shia majority in Iraq turn on America’s
troops in Iraq if America bombed Shia Iran?

Question; Now that America has successfully destroyed the
nation of Iraq who is now the greatest regional power in the
Middle East?

Question; Could Iran now dominate America’s longtime ally,
Saudi Arabia, in Middle Eastern affairs?

Question; would destroying Iran’s infrastructure greatly
weaken them as a domination power in the Middle East?

Question; do real men go to Tehran?

Question; would 30,000 extra American fighters be required to
secure the Green Zone in Baghdad if America attacked Iran?

Question; are the democrats too dumb to figure this out or are
they players in the same freakin game

[JDPriestly]

1. recommended but what's to say? you said it all so well

[rollopollo]

2. My two cents

Question: "...why should we take him at his word that he needs 50,000 extra troops in Iraq for a “surge” to restore order when he’s had three years to do just that, yet at every step he’s done the
freaking opposite?"

Additionally, Colin Powell, who knows an awful lot more than Bush, in terms of military planning has said that additional troops will most likely not improve the situation. I can understand why generals in the field are calling for reinforcement, but when you're in a pitched battle, what general in the midst of the fighting wouldn't. Powell can make this assessment objectively, and I hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears- for Republicans and Democrats.

Question; when has a temporary “surge” of manpower ever been
used as a military tactic in the past to restore order to
anarchy?

This is an excellent question. I get so frustrated when I hear the President and his supporters talking about "victory" versus "failure". We never pin down what those mean. Despite being in Iraq for four years, we still don't have a measurable objective that we're trying to reach, when we say: "We've accomplished our purpose. Now let's leave the rest of the nation-building to the Iraqi people". Today, we're standing in the crossfire of Sunni and Shia; recent polls suggest BOTH of those groups want us to leave and a majority of Sunni's and a near-majority of Shia APPROVE of the attacks on our military there. At the same time, our presence as an occupying force is catalyzing terrorist activity. Which leads me to ask: what are we doing there?

Question; this last Sunday did Newt Gingrich on “Face the
Nation” say at least twice that America is at war with Iran?

I understand where he's coming from but its that exact kind of thinking which is going to short-circuit the American era. As the sole superpower, we believe that ANYONE who acts against our interests is automatically at war with us, and we need to reciprocate. So Iran, by funding the opposition in Iraq, is now "at war" with us, even though they have every reason to jockey for influence there and support their Sh'ite brethren just like Saudi Arabia intends on doing with Sunnis (interestingly, we are not "at war" with Saudia Arabia despite their same interest in meddling). There is no middle ground with some people. The "with us or against us" credo has been taken to ad absurdium.

Question; Would the Shia majority in Iraq turn on America’s
troops in Iraq if America bombed Shia Iran?

This is a terrific question and the problem with starting a war before you finish one. I remember that before Bush visited Al-Maliki, Condi and Cheney had already began a strategy to pit the Sunni nations against Shi'ite Iran, not realizing that this would alienate them from the leadership in Iraq and the Sh'ite majority. That's why Cheney was recently in Saudi Arabia. The Sunni's already hate us in Iraq- something like 75% of them support the attacks against our troops there. We alienated the Kurds by recently making government changes without their knowledge, review, or approval. Now, if we offend the Sh'ites by attacking Iran, we will have everyone in Iraq clamoring for our death, a perfect trifecta.

Question; Now that America has successfully destroyed the
nation of Iraq who is now the greatest regional power in the
Middle East?

Wow; another really good point. Iran has truly been capitalizing on being thrust into the role of regional leader; recently the Gulf Cooperation Council, consisting of 6 arab states and which has largely been pro-American, stated their interest in building a nuclear program. And who has offered to help them? Iran. Iran is consolidating its influence on Arab nations, and in many ways, an attack on Iran will be affront to many other Arab nations, even countries that earlier weren't allies of Iran.

Question; are the democrats too dumb to figure this out or
are they players in the same freakin game

We'll find out. I'm cringing because I think I already know the answer.