On a more serious topic:
Before the Iraq invasion in 2003, I had conversations with pro-war folks, notably Travis and Geoff, about the possibility that Iraq had nuclear weapons. I went on record as saying I thought there was zero chance, largely because I've talked to a number of Iraqi scientists and weapons inspectors and they all said the same thing, i.e. they were faking progress on weapons to keep Saddam happy and their families alive. Very similar to what Hiezenburg did during WWII. I believed them. The pro-war crowd implied they were lying to us not Saddam and "do you really want to take that risk". I did, but we didn't.
2 years later: there were no nuclear WMD, Iraqi scientists were faking results.
New prediction:
From the NYT today:
EARLIER this month Bush administration officials leaked to the press what they said was a new official estimate of when Iran might be able to build a nuclear weapon. Speaking anonymously, they told reporters that American intelligence agencies now believe it would take at least 6 and maybe as many as 10 years before that fateful day arrives.
I don't buy this for the same reasons I didn't buy the Iraqi story. Building a bomb isn't that hard and enriching the uranium, while tedious, isn’t' that hard either. Also, the Iranian students/scientists I knew were all working hard, getting good grades and had every intention of going back to Iran and building weapons. Hell, there were 2 Iranians in my nuclear weapons design class at Penn State in 1985. They got A's. The scientists I talked to in 2001 were sober, serious, and seemed to think they were going to need nukes soon.
Personally, I think they already have some and are not far from building arbitrary quantities of more.
My concern now is that the army is stretched thin, exhausted from the Iraq war, and the american appitite for taking war to other countries is gone. I think Iran thinks we are too wasted from this to go after them, and they now have a free pass. Our credibility with the rest of the world on this issue is for shit. Far from detering Iran, I think the Iraq War has emboldened them.
3 comments:
I am sixteen years from being in the service of course, but my step-son is active duty Army.
I get the sense that 'stretched thin' doesn't apply across the entire Army. Regular formations aren't (unless they've just come back from there, NG formations are, barring local exceptions.
What we're seeing (in the Army) is a mode of operation that the Marines have been doing since the mid 50s.
In theory the Corps had 1/3 deployed, 1/3 recovering, 1/3 getting ready to deploy.
In practice I found all kinds of exceptions, but that was the rule of thumb. The Army hasn't had to work this way and is (from an organizational POV) learning how to handle equipment and personel replenishment in an expeditionary environment.
That's interesting. I had been thinking of it in terms of the (maybe now outdated) 2 Theatres Theory, i.e. we needed to be ready to fight an all out war on two simultaneous fronts. From that POV it looks thin. OTOH if it’s a 3/3/3 model as you suggest, I can see the advantage of having additional troops staged and ready sooner and keeping them in play longer for periods of time.
I'm not sure how the NG and Army Reserve units are going to handle an expeditionary mode. Gaps (IIRC) in regular Marine units were handled by calling up individual Reservists who had the right skills. In theory anyone was liable for call up. In practice there were always enough volunteers - at one point in 1992 we had more volunteers (at Camp Lejeune) than we had billets.
For years the NG was sold as a weekend only deal, with summer training. More tail and specialized units were turned over to the NG. Now we find we need those guys more often than advertised. Working this out takes years and isn't at all newsworthy, bar snapshots here and there that don't do the problem justice.
The regular Army is going to change as well. The recruit training (that I've seen) isn't setup to produce the right mindset those guys will find themselvs in, soldiers frankly lack the esprit de corps you need for that mission. Abortions like 'berets for everyone' don't help.
What we'll see (I hope) is a return of the regimental system where you join a regiment, live with them and seperate never really leaving your regiment. Officers might rotate out to higher headquarters or schools, but the regiment is their home and they'll always come back.
Post a Comment