Apr 19, 2006

Win An Inch To Clinch A Mile

Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner conducted a war game in 2004. To view a PDF file containing the slides outlining the war game scenario, click here.

The war game strongly suggested that attacking Iran will in all likelihood prove to provide no solution that corresponds with the Administration's publically declared concerns, motives, and objectives vis-à-vis Iran.

An attack against Iran is almost guaranteed to make things much worse in the Middle East than they already are and will most surely lead to a litany of disasters.

An attack against Iran will not be a solution to the Administration's publicly declared objectives of stabilizing Iraq, addressing the claimed objectives of the so-called War On Terror, or addressing the Administration's incessant declarations of concern over claimed Iranian circumstances.

This however is not at all to say that the disastrous outcome projected by the aforementioned war game will not address publicly undeclared good-enough objectives - that is to say, covert objectives that instead coincide with narrowly defined interests less palatable, and far removed, from general domestic opinion and sentiments at large.

Of course the phrasing disastrous outcomes is only applicable when we compare the results of the Administration's actions with the claims and promises that underpin their publicly stated rationales for their metastasizing pantheon of invasive actions. (Pre-emptive as in pre-emptive war is in fact a word that has a very specific meaning in the laws and language regulating war and as such it in no way qualifies for use to describe the wars of the Bush Administration. The kindest alternative we could come up with was thus invasive)

If however a sufficient objective for the Administration and the interests they champion is to incapacitate the nations of the region by bringing them into a state of chaotic equilibrium that prevents them from furthering any domestic or pan-regional agendas for growth not in lockstep with U.S. interests then a disastrous attack, as defined by a discrepancy between what is promised in selling the war to the public and what is actually achieved, must reasonably be allowed to be considered a significant success.

From this adjusted perspective, Iraq is a success and that success can easily be replicated in Iran. One must acclimatize onself to the paradigm shift in defining successful intervention in the Middle East if one is to reasonably predict the capacity, the will, and the probability for the U.S. to openly engage Iran with overwhelming standoff military resources.

As opposed to attempting the utopian feat of replacing an unfriendly regime with a publicly palatable and subservient regime we can instead, and simply so, throw the whole region into a flux that prevents it and its component parts from asserting themselves inwardly and outwardly both militarily, economically, and politically. And all that chaotic while we will see a soaring of petro-industry windfall profits, Middle East petro-supplies will be conserved thus extending reservoir life cycles, and Israel's neigbouring economies will be burdened with debilitating competitive disadvantages giving it intense leverage on its present capacities to project various vectors of power and influence in the region. For some, a so-called disastrous outcome in Iraq and Iran is a veritable freebee panacea.

It has now been officially documented that the actual decision to take military action - and to actually commence! such military actions against Iraq - occured in July 2002. This was long before we had any semblance of a UN resolution in place or Congress had granted any form of approval, not to mention any public awareness that the war against Iraq had already begun!

In fact the 2002 commencement of actual military operations inside Iraq, named Operation Southern Focus, entailed the initiation of military attacks against Iraq with only one major restraining directive from Rumsfeld and that directive was to keep all the military attacks inherent Southern Focus below the sweep of mainstream Western media. Begin bombing but don't let it appear on the News. The same generic setup seems to be underway now in Iran.

Evidence, which I'm too lazy to outline at the moment, is accumulating that in fact the decision to use military force in Iran has already been made and military operations are apparently well underway against and inside Iran but are being managed so as to stay under the radar of major Western media outlets.

The kick-off for the psy-op directed against the American domestic population in December of last year marked the launch of military operations to achieve sufficient American public opinion spectrum dominance by securing adequate support for military actions and decisions already well underway and slated for nigh and inevitable escalation. The pending escalation will shift the ongoing invisible war against Iran into the visible spectrum where it will conveniently conflate with support retrofitted and aligned to foregone decisions and actions thanks to the massive psy-op program underway. Effwit has been diligently keeping tabs on many of tactical facets of this psy-op program directed primarily at the American domestic population.

Soon there will be a big debate about the constitutional framework under which the U.S. is already conducting military operations against and inside Iran and while that entertaining soap opera once again fogs the line of sight for critics and faux-incensed journalists, the full-scale attack with its disparate fallout will already be a fait accompli.

In 2-3 years time we'll be once again discovering documentation and hearing whistleblowers testify on how this war was railroaded into public acceptance through lies, psy-ops, exaggerated claims, yada yada yada. But that will be then and now will have had its usual tiptoeing way through the tulips of acquiescing and enabling main stream journalism.

Never throw away a winning formula. The game in play isn't to get away without blame. The game is just to get far enough away and ahead so that whatever blame inevitably comes your way comes far too late to make one iota of a meaningful difference.

You just have to win by a crooked inch to win the entire mile


Anonymous said...

Your reasoning entails that most of the reasons put forward for why the U.S. can not go to war with Iran are in fact reasons for why the US can go to war.

M1 said...

Call me an optimist! ;)