This article had me chuckling.

We'll see what happens

http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html


Super War Preview
The Iranian Suicide Bombers vs. The American Crusaders
Gary Brecher

By Gary Brecher ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )

Everybody's asking me what'll happen if we attack Iran. To get a quick 
preview, just do what this guy in my eighth-grade class did: put a 
firecracker in your mouth, hold it between your front teeth, and light the 
fuse.

"It's just like the homecoming game!" Bush settles in to enjoy the upcoming 
slaughter.

Your friends won't believe you'll go through with it. So when it blows up in 
your face, you'll expect them to be impressed. And you'll be surprised, just 
like this guy in junior high was surprised, when all you get is a perforated 
eardrum and a reputation as the biggest dumbass in the school.

Right now, Bush is standing there with a lit match and a big firecracker 
labeled "Iran" in his mouth. Except it's more like an M-80 or a whole stick 
of dynamite than a firecracker. Nobody believes he'll be dumb enough to 
light it, to actually attack Iran. Even the Iranians don't believe it; 
Khameini, their head Mullah, said last week "America is in no position to 
invade Iran."

He's right about that. Even the US Army brass admits we're "overstretched." 
We don't even have enough troops to control Iraq; a war with Iran would mean 
calling up every National Guard unit we have. Even then, it would take years 
to get them combat-ready.

And this time the Brits won't come with us. They've been making that clear, 
on the quiet. If we go in, it'll be as a coalition of one.

So Khameini's right; we can't attack Iran. But that doesn't mean we won't. 
Khameini was making the same mistake everybody's been making: assuming Bush 
and his cronies have a lick of sense.

The best way of guessing what Bush will do is asking, what's the worst thing 
he could do to America? Whatever it is, that's what he'll do. I think he's 
been possessed by bin Laden, because everything he's done has been exactly 
what Al Quaeda hoped for. Right now, bin Laden is praying to Allah that 
we'll be stupid enough to attack Iran. That would be the cherry on his halal 
sundae, the one thing that could actually finish us off as a Superpower.

In my "Quagmire Bowl" article I said the Iraq war probably wouldn't be 
fatal. It's definitely hurt us, but it won't mean the downfall of America. 
Well, if we invade Iran, that bet is off. All bets are off. People don't 
realize how fast a Superpower can fall. It only takes one invasion too many.

Napoleon was unstoppable before he invaded Russia. So was Hitler. Now France 
and Germany are "Old Europe."

Invading the wrong country can age you faster than driving a Long Beach bus 
on the night shift. Invading Iran helped end the win-streak of the best, 
biggest Empire of all, the Romans. It was in 260 AD, when emperor Valerius 
headed east to deal with the Persians who were kickin' up a fuss on the 
eastern border of the Empire. This Valerian would've risen high in Dubya's 
administration, because he was a real hard charger, a go-getter...and dumb 
as a half brick. He charged right into Iraq -- they called it Mesopotamia 
back then -- even though his troops were dying of plague all around him. The 
Persians sat back, watched Roman troops keeling over, and had a good laugh, 
eating pistachios in the shade while Valerian tried to figure out what to 
do.

Naturally, he decided it was time for bold action. That's the only trick 
these go-getters know. It reminds me of what one of MacArthur's aides said 
about him: "When it paid to be aggressive, he was aggressive. And when it 
didn't pay to be aggressive...he was aggressive."

Valerian figured a little proactive salesmanship would settle things, so he 
demanded a meeting with the Persian emperor, Sapor--who couldn't believe his 
luck. Sapor ordered the slaves to cook a big banquet, bring out the best 
silverware -- and had his troops hide in the banquet hall till he gave the 
signal. Valerian stomped in, Sapor snapped his fingers and Valerian ended up 
a live trophy, dragged around in chains through every city in the Persian 
empire till his purple robes were shreds.

There's a moral to this story: Persians are tricky, clever people. They've 
always had that reputation. You don't want people like that for enemies. 
Unfortunately, Bush won't be leading the charge the way Valerian did, so we 
probably won't get to see him dragged through Tehran in chains. But we'll 
see worse things: casualty lists that will make Iraq look like a beach 
volleyball game, American armies losing conventional battles, and after a 
few years, a humiliating exit.

Iran is scarier than Iraq in every way you can name. First of all, it's 
physically way bigger, three times the size of Iraq. The population is 65 
million, nearly three times as many as Iraq. The Iranians are young, too. 
Their birthrate is way down now, around 2 kids per woman, but back in the 
Khomeini years it was one of the highest in the world. So right now, the 
Iranian population has a demographic profile that's a military planner's 
dream: not too many little kids to take care of, but a huge pool of 
fighting-age men -- about 18 million.

"Go War!" Bush the Yale cheerleader

And it won't be just young, fit men fighting us. Thanks to the invention of 
the suicide car bomb, guerrilla commanders will have someplace to send 70 
year old volunteers: down to the garage to pick up a Plymouth packed full of 
fertilizer bomb. You don't have to be young to put the pedal to the metal.

The insurgents' DMV test will be real simple: "OK, Grandpa, can you make out 
the silhouette of a Bradley or Humvee, and aim your car at it?" Do that and 
you pass. They hand you the keys, and you get a quick, painless martyr's 
exit. Everybody will want to get in on the fun: Grandpa, Grandma, even the 
cripples, with specially adapted pedals so they can chin-pilot their car 
bombs into our patrols.

The suicide car bomb is a good example of why I don't worship hardware like 
most war fans do. These cars are actually no-tech guided surface-to-surface 
cruise missiles--and damn effective. We've found that out the hard way. All 
it takes is a driver who's willing to die for the pleasure of killing the 
enemy. Put him (or her) in an old jalopy stuffed with fertilizer and 
detonators and you've got a highly accurate, fire-and-forget missile.

They're especially deadly in urban warfare, because they're perfectly 
camouflaged till they actually blow up. And all for the price of a used car 
and a few bags of Miracle Gro.

Our cruise missiles are real showpieces, ultra hi-tech. They can be launched 
from subs, surface ships, planes and ground launchers. They can guide 
themselves over hundreds of miles, they cost millions apiece (usually 
hundreds of times as much as the huts or sheds we aim them at)--but they're 
useless to us in Iraq, whereas the suicide car-bomb cruise missiles are 
hurting us every single day.

It's the software inside people's heads that wins wars nowadays. You 
hardware freaks are going to have to face that fact one of these days. And 
it's this brain-software that we're hopeless at programming. Iraq has proved 
pretty clearly we don't have a clue how to use the Middle-Eastern brain OS. 
In fact, we've actually done the impossible: reprogrammed the miserable, 
cowardly Iraqis into fierce warriors.

Remember Gulf War I? Remember those pitiful fags crawling up to our soldiers 
to surrender on their hands and knees, sobbing like babies? Two years of 
occupation by Bush's morons has turned those cowards into fearless kamikazes 
in Oldsmobiles.

So just imagine what the Iranians, the original Islamic suicide squads, will 
do when we invade. There'll be traffic jams, ten-mile backups, outside every 
US base, thousands of car bombers honking and changing lanes trying to get 
to the front of the line and make that final commute to Paradise. It'll be 
like the San Diego freeway on a Monday morning, except the fenderbenders 
will be a little more serious.

The Iranians, unlike the Iraqis, have always been willing to die for their 
country. In the Iran-Iraq War (1980-89) thousands of Iranians volunteered to 
charge across Iraqi minefields, knowing they were going to die. It scared 
the Hell out of the Iraqis. They threw everything at those crazy Persian 
suicide charges, even poison gas. And the Iranians just kept coming. If you 
want a more complete account of that war, read my column, "The War Nobody 
Watched" in eXile #178. The short version is simple: Iranians are brave, 
determined people. Don't mess with them.

Of course all the NeoCon crazies are peddling the old story that "once we 
invade, the people will rally to the cause of freedom."

Yeah. Just like they did in Iraq. If we couldn't get people on our side 
after deposing a monster like Saddam, what chance do you think we have of 
winning hearts and minds in Iran? The kids in Iran are pissed off at the way 
the old Mullahs won't let 'em rock and roll, but the idea that they'll 
support an American invasion because they're bored is totally insane. It's 
like imagining that the kids in Footloose would've backed a Soviet invasion 
of Nebraska because John Lithgow wouldn't let them hold school dances.

The argument between Mullahs and kids in Iran is a classic family fight. And 
you know what happens when some intruder crashes in on the middle of one of 
those: the whole family unites in about a millisecond and tears him apart.

The Iranians already hate us. They have since 1953, when the CIA staged a 
coup to get rid of a popular Lefty Prime Minister, Mossadeq. Way back in the 
70s, when most of the world still kinda liked us, crowds in Tehran chanted 
"Marg bar Amrika," "Death to America."

We're also getting told we'll be able to exploit the ethnic divisions inside 
Iran. The fact is, Iran's ethnic problems are nowhere near as bad as Iraq's. 
More than half of the population is ethnically Persian. The next-biggest 
group is the Azerbaijani, about a quarter of the population. They squabble 
with the Iranian majority from time to time, but they're fellow Shi'ites, 
they intermarry all the time- there's no real hatred between them. There are 
a few Arabs in Western Iran, maybe 3% of the population. But if you're 
thinking we could bring them over to our side, forget it. Saddam already 
tried that during the Iran-Iraq War and got nowhere. And if they're not 
going to rebel for a fellow Arab who lives next door, you better believe 
they won't rise up to help us Christian Crusaders.

That leaves us with the Kurds, who are about 10% of the Iranian population. 
There are all kinds of factions in Kurdistan, all of them armed and ready to 
kill each other, so we might be able to sign up a few of the really crazy 
gangs to work with us. But they would have zero chance of controlling a 
country as big, fierce and clever as Iran.

Face it: we have no friends left in Iran. Thanks to Bush, we have no friends 
left anywhere in the Muslim world, except a few sleazes like Allawi -- and 
he'd be torn to pieces if he showed himself in the street without Delta 
Force bodyguards.

If we attack Iran, that'll make three Muslim countries invaded in three 
years. We may as well dress our soldiers in white tunics with red crosses on 
them, like they did in the Middle Ages.

We'd be fighting on three fronts: the conventional war against the Iranian 
armed forces, guerrilla war in the territories we'd conquered, and worldwide 
terror attacks by every group that sympathizes with Iran.

The third front, international terror attacks, would be the scariest of all. 
Because unlike Iraq, Iran actually does have terrorist connections. Very 
good ones, with some very scary people. Iran is the only country where Shia 
Islam is the state religion, so Shiites all over think of Iran the way 
old-time Catholics used to think of Rome. Attacking Iran would drive them 
insanely angry, not that it takes much to get Shiites in a crazy, suicidal 
mood.

Would America Do A Thing Like That?

"The possibility of a U.S. attack against Iran is very low. We think America 
is not in a position to take a lunatic action of attacking Iran,"

Iran President Mohammed Khatami said. January 19, 2005.

"The Americans aren't coming. They wouldn't do a thing like that."

Manuel Noriega, on the eve of the US invasion of Panama, 1989. (Quoted in 
Commanders by Bob Woodward, page 158).

I've written before about how Shiites see the world ("Shi'ite! Holy 
Shi'ite!" eXile #197). They love martyrdom, and don't care whether they win 
or lose as long as they take a few of the enemy with them. So you can't 
"shock and awe" them with superior firepower, or discourage them by 
inflicting a lot of casualties. They're the perfect suicide bombers -- in 
fact, it was the Shi'ites in Lebanon who perfected the suicide car bomb. The 
first time it happened, a 16-year-old girl drove a car full of explosives 
into an Israeli APC. The Israelis were shaken; in 25 years of fighting the 
Arabs, nobody else had done that to them.

Eventually, the Shi'ite Hizbollah guerrillas in Southern Lebanon drove the 
Israelis out. They were just more willing to take casualties than the 
Israelis were, even if the exchange was 20 or 30 dead guerrillas for every 
Israeli killed.

And guess which guerrilla group is closest to Iran? That's right, Lebanese 
Hizbollah. Iran is tight with all the Shi'ite militias in Lebanon, in the 
Bekaa Valley and Beirut as well as the South.

We'll also be pissing off the Iraqi Shi'ites, 60% of the Iraqi population. 
Right now they're cooperating with us -- not because they like us, but 
because we're helping them use their majority to take over Iraq.

It's a laugh, the way Bush's people say the Shi'ite enthusiasm for voting 
proves that "democracy is taking hold" in Iraq. All it proves is that 
Shi'ites can count. They've got 60% of the vote sewed up, and we're riding 
shotgun for them, absorbing all the violence the Sunnis can dish out, while 
the Shia go out and grab power by the ballot box. But if we attack Iran, 
they'll turn on us like Sadr's boys did in April 2004, and cities like 
Karbala, Najaf and Basra will be on the front page every day. It'll be a 
Shi'ite tsunami, with terrorism in places you'd never expect. Lots of 
excitable Iranian expats are going to wire up their Mercs with HE. They'll 
be the richest, best-groomed suicide bombers in history -- Armani suits 
instead of death shrouds, and Ferraris instead of old clunkers. It'll put 
terrorism in a whole new income bracket.

Meanwhile, what'll happen in the big battle between us and the Iranian 
forces? Iran's conventional forces are the LEAST scary part of the problem. 
They're in bad shape: lots of men (400,000, with another 120,000 in the 
Revolutionary Guards) but starved for materiel. Most of their old stock was 
destroyed in the war against Iraq, and we've been discouraging suppliers 
from sending replacements. Russia, China and North Korea have been Iran's 
suppliers lately--a big switch from the 70s, when the Shah preferred to buy 
his weapons systems from the US and UK.

They claim to have 1500 tanks, but the bulk of their MBTs are old and rusty. 
Since 1989, all they've acquired was 500-odd T-72s, with about that many 
BMP-2 APCs. That's not much armor for such a big force, and the T-72 hasn't 
exactly covered itself in glory in the two Gulf wars.

Their air force, which used to be the second-best in the Mideast (after 
Israel, obviously) is in even sorrier shape, with a couple squadrons flying 
MiG-29s and Su-24 CAS fighter/bombers. The rest is rusting hulks left over 
from the Shah's buying sprees.

One cool bit of trivia: the Iranian AF used to be the only one outside the 
US to fly the F-14. Most were grounded when we embargoed Iran, and a few 
were lost in the Iraq War, but I haven't been able to find out what happened 
to the rest. Anybody know?

Other items they've been buying should be worrying us much more. For 
instance, they've invested heavily in Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles, 
which have been fitted on ten new, fast coastal-attack ships. In a column of 
mine a couple of years ago ("U Sank My Carrier" eXile #156), I talked about 
the very scary outcome of a Persian Gulf war game, when USMC General Paul 
van Ripen, who was playing the part of Iranian commander, managed to sink 
half our Persian Gulf task force, including a carrier, with simultaneous 
attacks by small planes and fast attack craft.

Their missile forces are another worry -- not for what they could do to our 
troops but for the havoc they could start up if the Iranians, under attack, 
lost their cool and started targeting countries supporting the US. Once 
again, nobody's really sure exactly what missiles Iran has, or what 
quantities they've got. They definitely do have plenty of our old friend the 
Scud -- maybe 250 Scud B (range 285-330 miles depending on warhead; accuracy 
zero) and another 350 Scud C (range 500-700 miles).

As we found out in two Gulf wars, Scuds are all hype -- unless you have the 
guts to fit them with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads. Saddam never 
did. (Though he did fire chemical shells against the Iranians and the 
Kurds.) The Iranians just might. They've got the chemical weapons: mustard 
gas, cyanide, and the scariest of all, VX, a very potent, hard-to-clean-up 
nerve gas.

One of the big arguments right now is whether the Iranians can actually 
field their Shahab-3, a newer better missile designed by North Korea and 
also supplied to Pakistan (where it's called the Ghauri II). As usual, the 
warmongers are claiming Iran has 'em and plans to use 'em on us. Cooler 
heads say that's unlikely; so far there have only been a few failed test 
flights, with the Shahab-3 blown up mid-flight (which is usually a sign the 
test failed).

After we all got suckered into believing Saddam could gas London with 45 
minutes warmup, I'm not buying the scare stories till I see some proof. We 
know the Iranians have Scuds; we know they have chemical warheads. That's 
more than enough to worry about. Because these people aren't cowards like 
Saddam; I can see them being real sore losers if the US invades and defeats 
their army. The kind of sore losers who press every Doomsday button they 
can.

Of course, nobody is claiming the US is going to launch an all-out invasion 
of Iran. The rumors coming out of the Pentagon say it'll be a mix of air 
strikes and quick, small special ops raids on nuclear sites and key military 
installations. The idea is to destroy as much of the military infrastructure 
as we can, and crush their nuclear program before it can produce working 
nukes.

The biggest, scariest nuclear site is Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf. It 
worried the Iraqis so much they bombed it before the two reactors were 
brought online. The Iranians learned a hard lesson from that raid, and 
started dispersing the nuke program all over the country. They're working on 
15 sites, which they say are going to be used for "peaceful purposes." I 
love the way nuclear scientists talk about "peace." That was Stalin's 
favorite word, and the nuclear-science types mean it about as much as he 
did.

Of course the Iranians want nukes. They're surrounded by traditional 
enemies, they know the US is itching to attack, and they consider themselves 
Allah's representatives on earth. If you were in that situation, wouldn't 
you be going all-out to get some nukes?

The experts all say there's no way Iran could have any nuclear weapons yet. 
Maybe they're right; even experts have to be right once in a while. So the 
question is how much time it will take them to develop nukes. Estimates go 
from a year to six years. The trouble with these estimates is that they're 
always bent to help somebody's agenda. For instance, the Israelis are the 
ones saying Iran may go nuke in a year or less. That's because they want us 
to panic, so we'll do the dirty work of blasting Iran's nuke sites for them.

The six-year estimates are coming out of Europe, because they're such wimps 
they'll say anything to avoid trouble. Truth is, I have no idea how close 
the Iranians are to a working nuke, and I don't believe anybody else does 
either. If the CIA was any good, we'd have a clue, but those poor bastards 
couldn't infiltrate a public library, let alone an Iranian nuclear plant.

If we do go in with quick commando raids and air strikes, we might get away 
with it. The Iranians would definitely try to retaliate by proxy, getting 
Hizbollah and the Iraqi Shi'ites to attack Americans anywhere they go. But 
we could handle that. The real worry is that these lightning raids are never 
as simple and quick as they're supposed to be. Remember the all-day 
firefight in Somalia, where we lost 18 Rangers? That was supposed to be a 
lightning raid: chopper in, grab Aidid, get out before the locals could 
react. A few hours later, the whole US force in Somalia was engaged against 
the whole population of Mogadishu.

Remember the lightning raid by Delta and the Rangers on Mullah Omar's house? 
That didn't exactly come off according to plan either. Once a raid goes bad, 
soldiers want to go in to rescue their buddies. Then they're trapped, and 
more guys go in to rescue them. And without ever meaning to, you've got a 
conventional battle going on deep in the enemy's homeland. And once that 
happens, the situation is out of control.

If the Iranian army and revolutionary guards play it smart, they'll harass 
and retreat, trading land for time the way the Russians did in WW II. In the 
territory we did control, we'd have a massive insurgency. With the Iraqi 
Shia all fired up, we'd have garrisons pinned down all over Iraq, and all 
through whatever chunk of Iran we occupied. And no real guarantee we wiped 
out all the nuclear sites, because our intelligence is so lousy we might 
never have heard of the most secret labs (which may well be underground in 
the Iranian desert).

And we're actually thinking about doing this. Incredible. It's like a man 
with a pit bull chomping on his leg purposely opening the door to a kennel 
where there are a dozen rottweilers ready to tear him apart.

In fact, it's such a stupid idea, and it'd be such a total disaster for 
America, that Bush probably will do it. Anybody else starting to wonder if 
he and Cheney are actually Al Quaeda moles?


-- 
Jay P Hailey ~Meow!~
MSNIM - jayphailey ;
AIM -jayphailey03;
ICQ - 37959005
HTTP://jayphailey.8m.com

"Big Business + Big Government = Tyranny"



_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw

Reply via email to