Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I really hate to interrupt the Palehorse74 self delimited cricket concerto of---<chirp> <chirp>...<chirp> <chirp>
As Palehorse74 suggests there are only two binary conclusions to Iraq. Namely stay the course and win or get out and see all hell break out.
In the limited mind of palehorse74, those may be the only options he can foresee which partially explains why he does not seem to question the totally stupid strategy GWB&co. are using now.
When in fact, different strategies can open up limitless numbers of different options and possible outcomes.
Jesus fucking christ, will one of you armchair liberal generals please tell us what the third option is? You continue to say they exist, but you can't tell us exactly what they are. Just that ours are bad, and we are stupid.
We know our options are bad. We know we're stupid. We need YOU brilliant liberal commanders to
help us! PLEASE!
Hey Sparky, what are your options?. You need to put your gun down and stop "pricking" your "librul" voodoo doll to use your keyboard.
Option 1: Bomb the nuclear facilities. Likely to delay the program by a few years, but will strengthen the existing regime, increase anti-American sentiment and terrorism, and further destabilize the region. Iran may mine the straights of Hormuz, resulting in $150 oil and destabilizing the global economy.
Option 2: Increase the sanctions and further expand the coalition against Iran. This will put further pressure on the Iranian government, but may unfortunately result in strengthening of the government as they have an external source to blame, and in any case is unlikely to stop the nuclear program. Iran may then demand, and will receive, significant concessions a la N. Korea when it has nukes.
Many people, included, have advocated a third option:
Extend carrots in the form of influence and regional prestige for meeting specific milestones, and try not to be too patronizing about it, while keeping up the economic pressures.
It is impossible to ameliorate the situation under the mantle of moral absolutism.
By offering Iran carrots, are you trading off short term relief for long term pain? Are you giving the child the candy he demands because you're tired of listening to his whining? Are there lessons to be learned from dealings with Iraq vs N. Korea, or is it still too early to tell? It's impossible to tell.
But there are two things to consider:
1) The course of any action should not be determined based upon its own merits, but rather in comparison to alternative options. What is it that we want, and what are the alternative options for getting there? I don't believe that sanctions will slow down the nuclear program, especially because China and Russia, wary of continued US hegemony and unilateralism, are loathe to fully support it.
2) In any confrontation/negotiation, you do best by understanding your counterpart. Any good salesperson or negotiator knows this. I suggest that the US, by not ever even meeting with the Iranians, is ignoring access to data that could help it understand what the Iranians really want. Is it really the destruction of Israel, as most people believe, or is it increased relevance?. The information is irrelevant only if you believe that a force-only-option will bring about what we want.
One thing that often seems lost on America's leaders, perhaps because of America's national youth and multi-culteralism, is the importance of subtlety and saving face in many other cultures. I don't see it in Iranian culture to lose face, but in a negotiation, its leaders could weave a story of "apparent victory", even if it gives up concessions.
Facebook
Twitter