On Dec 11, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
Shane Mage:
The point, however, is that, for the most obvious geographical
reasons, a *successful* attack would not be militarily conceivable
without the use of Iraqi territory and territorial waters. It
would also be politically impossible without the acquiescence of
the Shiite Iraqi government. Both are precluded by the SOFA.<
But what are the standards of "success"? if this means "conquest,"
then Iraq is definitely needed as a base. But if it simply means
strategic bombing of a limited number of sites, is Iraq really needed?
Israel once bombed Iraq without having any near-by bases.
But Saddam had no way to retaliate. Iranian retaliation for
"strategic bombing" could and would be devastating, including within
Iraq. War is therefore militarily unthinkable, leaving Obama no
option but to negotiate a US-Iranian condominium in Iraq on the least
unfavorable terms he can manage. The main thing he can get in return
is a big role for the US nuclear industry in Iran's (stupid) nuclear
program.
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
