Yes, this fact was established on the first page of this thread. What is more important to the equation though is understanding WHY Iran is a problem. Socially and historically, there is a history to this conflict. It does help to find out why it exists. An unsentimental understanding of such matters is what foreign policies should be built on, not the latest issue of Captain America. Interestingly, Iran boasts to having the first democratic consitution ever constructed, recorded on clay prisms in 2,500BC.
You state the obvious, though why you need to escapes me since I've already made my assessment on the why several times on this forum. Your citation of a historical fact is irrelevant to such understanding since Iran is currently a theocratic dictatorship which tries to portray itself as a form of democracy. Objectively speaking, the Iranians, Who have a history of success in war which predates the establishment of the US republic by a few thousand years, saw right through the unfolding strategy of the US administration and headed it off with tried and true strategy employed by both the communists against the US in Vietnam and against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Our military establishment's failure to learn the lessons of both conflicts and head Iran off at the pass is the sole reason for the success of Iran in keeping us bogged down there.
The US has demonstrated how weak and ineffective it's military machine is going up against Iraq ... a country under sanctions and being bombed for a decade. It's geared up for the big conflict with Russia and all the high-tech weapons don't count for as much when it comes down to people on the ground (and it always comes down to people on the ground - don't believe the hype).
Partially correct Simon. The US is more successful than you realize at the moment because the Mainstream is keeping our success out of the public eye. Haven't you noticed that there is almost nothing in the news right now about Iraq? That is because 15 of the 18 objectives of the increase in forces in Iraq are met. The Iraqis have taken over much of the responsibility for dealing with insurgents and accomplished much more than the media wants the public to know. So they are silent on the subject.
Right now the media is pounding the subject of the "resurgence" of the Taliban and cheering them on. That does fit the media paradigm of the ineffective US military so they are pounding away at it. For them a successful US is not news and they just don't want to hear about it. They also neglect to mention that when Bush made his deals to enable him to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and go into Iraq NATO took over the bulk of the responsibility for The Afghan front. For most of the time since a German general held command there and the situation there is due to two factors. One, missteps on European Military leaders on the ground there. Two, ignoring the lesson from both Vietnam and Afghanistan that an enemy allowed safe refuge will regroup and reemerge. Both NATO and the US didn't want to rock an ally's boat, namely Musharraf in neighboring Pakistan, and that repeat of the Soviet's mistake in the same region is the main reason for the situation there.
I fancy Iran's chances to be honest both from a military perspective and politically - I don't think the US has the willpower or stomach to start a conflict that would be very expensive (monetarily and people-wise)
In truth, the Ayatollahs relied on two things. First, the resentment for a conquering force by any people, even when said conquest and occupation provides freedom in reality. Before the US went in a visiting Argentinian professor in the college I last attended pointed out that part of human nature in his assessment of what was likely to happen if the us went into Iraq and he was proven correct by events. Second, they also relied on the historical fact the the US political left-wing just doesn't have the stomach for war and will do anything they can to stop us from going into any war or hinder our conduct of any war entered into. The sole exception being if they are backed into a situation by an outside party like happened in WWII and public opinion sides so strongly for revenge that they are powerless to do anything about it. That, by the way, is why the US stayed out of WWII as long as it did and left you Britts alone to face the darkness. Were it not for a very powerful political left which was actually sympathetic towards Hitler and considered WWII a "European problem" which had nothing to do with us the US would've come to your aid earlier and things would never have been as disparate for your country as they became in 1940-41. So I agree that you are partially correct in your opinion.
Forscher
