"Iran is an aggressor state motivated by a fanatical religious ideology"
Iran is is a bunch of people, many of whom are getting sick and tired of having theocrats push them around. An invasion by the US, even if it were a military disaster for the present government, would be a political gift, because people would naturally back the home team against the invaders. But nuclear weapons in a government fronted by this zealot Ahmadinejad (or anyone like him, of which there are many) would obviously be a terrible danger to Israel, the West, the world.
It's a dilemma, complicated by the present unfortunate state of the US military's readiness. We don't have the resources for a full-scale invasion of Iran while we're occupying Iraq and also trying (and failing, it seems) to hold down the lid on the Afghan-Pakistani border. It's worth repeating: that's where the real enemy is: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"If we leave Iraq, we will only have to invade the place again"
I'm not being flippant when I say that I'm okay with that. It is now obvious that USA's enormous military power does not confer on us the ability to build nations. But we can use it effectively against governments. If the government or governments that arise after US withdrawal give us cause to do so, we can fight again. And we'll win again.
It seems likely that the Kurds would welcome a US military presence, and an independent Kurdistan seems quite likely to succeed as a prosperous democratic state with our support. (And, as an old Xenophon fan, I'd like to see the Kardouchoi get a homeland after millennia of being stepped on by empires, but that's neither here nor there.)
Is it so unlikely that, after a period of sectarian strife and civil war, the Shiite south and the Sunni west should look northward to a peaceful, prosperous, free Kurdistan and say, "I'll have what they're having"? We could still win the peace if we stand down, in a strategically shrewd way, from our present untenable position in the no man's land of a nascent civil war.
no subject
Iran is is a bunch of people, many of whom are getting sick and tired of having theocrats push them around. An invasion by the US, even if it were a military disaster for the present government, would be a political gift, because people would naturally back the home team against the invaders. But nuclear weapons in a government fronted by this zealot Ahmadinejad (or anyone like him, of which there are many) would obviously be a terrible danger to Israel, the West, the world.
It's a dilemma, complicated by the present unfortunate state of the US military's readiness. We don't have the resources for a full-scale invasion of Iran while we're occupying Iraq and also trying (and failing, it seems) to hold down the lid on the Afghan-Pakistani border. It's worth repeating: that's where the real enemy is: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"If we leave Iraq, we will only have to invade the place again"
I'm not being flippant when I say that I'm okay with that. It is now obvious that USA's enormous military power does not confer on us the ability to build nations. But we can use it effectively against governments. If the government or governments that arise after US withdrawal give us cause to do so, we can fight again. And we'll win again.
It seems likely that the Kurds would welcome a US military presence, and an independent Kurdistan seems quite likely to succeed as a prosperous democratic state with our support. (And, as an old Xenophon fan, I'd like to see the Kardouchoi get a homeland after millennia of being stepped on by empires, but that's neither here nor there.)
Is it so unlikely that, after a period of sectarian strife and civil war, the Shiite south and the Sunni west should look northward to a peaceful, prosperous, free Kurdistan and say, "I'll have what they're having"? We could still win the peace if we stand down, in a strategically shrewd way, from our present untenable position in the no man's land of a nascent civil war.