Boy Theseus, I don't think Iran and Syria will fall for it. I can't see them getting involved in a civil war. More likely they will burn the ZOG and double deal them. Interesting, nonetheless. I had let the Iranian and Syrian thing in today's news go over my head.

As far as objectives, I really do believe the ZOG wanted a puppet government in Iraq, at least the oilmen did. Maybe the kikes like bremer really wanted to fuck it up though, with disbanding the army and outlawing the bathists. Jews have been known to overreach before, however.

Syria and Iran have already fallen for it. We do have a puppet where it counts--Kurdistan. ZOG could not just walk in and set up a puppet gov't, you know. Also, Iraq isn't the prize. Recall the U.S. "Middle East Grand Strategy" report:

"Grand strategy for the Middle East

&#8212]

It's not about oil, it's about Israel. Making the Syrians and Iranians busy with each other, and making Egypt a "prize" gives Israel a free hand for what they want to do.

 

They haven't fought well, they don't have a plan, nor an agenda (besides driving the foreigners out of their country), and are losing on the ground.

Why do we only hold a small section of Bagdhad and a thin strip of land to the airport? All of which is susceptible to mortar attack, at least peripherally.

Your above description might also describe the Vietnamese in opposition to the US in the 1960/70s, or the Afghans against the USSR in the 1980s, or the Algerians against the French in the 1950s. EDIT: all of which were defeats for the for the Western armies. Frankly, it might one day describe White Americans fighting muds in North America.

I think there is an interesting and plausible aspect to your theory, though.

In Vietnam, we wanted to do what we claimed we wanted for Iraq in 2003--have a stable, representative government. We learned our lesson.

In the other conflicts, the occupiers wanted to hold very large pieces of territory. We're smarter than that. Also, the "Green Zone" is in zero danger of being overrun, and at nearly zero danger of being mortered--this goes for conditions as they exist in the forseeable future.

I didn't come up with the theory, it's simply what is happening. USA Today tells you something different because it:

A) Hates the military, and revels in the military getting dirty (and the military knows this and figures it in)

B) the U.S. doesn't want to seem responsible for its hoped-for outcome of a massive blood-letting.

So, let the press say we're getting our asses kicked. We're not (can you imagine a USMC spokesman retorting a snarky reporter with "but ma'am, we've killed over half a million of them!"). 3000 soldiers in over 3.5 years is not losing. On what planet is that losing? Still, it's not strictly about the attrition of resources, it's about political goals. Our military planners go by the flawed maxim that "war is politics by other means," and our political goals are coming to pass. I mean . . . it's like people who were dancing when Rumsfield stepped down. HELOOOO, he was the longest-serving SecDef of all time! Eye, meet ball.

Of course, it helps that the parties involved are as non-sophisticated and predictable as an enemy can be, but that's for another time.

Thoughful posts, good thread. I always like to speculate on things like this and see what finally happens, and soon we will.

brutus whips out his crystal ball.......

I am of the opinion that there will soon be a paradigm shift in the way the Iraqi freedom fighters execute their resistance.

At this time, I will not go into the reasons how I've come to this opinion, other then to say that there is an observable and growing cognizance on the part of the Iraqis of the futility of the suicide bomber/insurgency strategy. Creative solutions have been a major obstacle for their strategists, however things will change very soon, if my observations are correct.

Whether we know it or not, White Nationalism is having a profound effect upon the way others see themselves. As we chat, others listen.....Very carefully they listen. From our discussions people get ideas that they never would have come to on their own. We might be very surprised at who is heeding our words.

Conflicts of the past have been closed communication affairs when compared to today’s electronically connected world. In the past, the manipulators of the wars have used communication barriers and language differences to keep adversaries from peaceful resolution of those conflicts. Not so today.

The internet is changing things in very dramatic ways, many of which are unseen at this time. One day we might be lucky enough to come to know exactly how great our unintended influence has been.

The shape of a future conflict between Iran and Syria will have little to do with what deal ZOG makes with either nation. Naturally Iran and Syria want to influence the regions that border them. Making a deal and signing a piece of paper just means the perspective powers can accelerate their efforts sooner without ZOG interference. How can ZOG enforce an agreement anyhow? What could the US give either party without alarming the chosen? ZOG might try to provoke the sides with false flag operations, but in the end Zionist power in Iraq is fading. Any deal/action taken now is unlikely to have any lasting impact on the region in two or three years time. Any treaty made is likely to go the way of the Paris Peace Accords.

Syria and Iran understand ZOG. They know ZOG would like to see them at each others throats. That knowledge might prevent a war, it might not. More likely it will be prevented by Syria knowing that it is the weaker, both economically and militarily. Syria can’t afford the blood and treasure that directly influencing Iraq could cost. Not when there is an Israel on the other front. A proxy war is more likely. The whole question hinges on whether Iran is willing to send in its regulars against the insurgency after ZOG withdraws.

Imagine the disillusionment of the religious jihadist in Iraq if the county turns into a battleground between two muslim states.

Another factor that will restrain conflict is that war will complicate Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon. While Iran has given more material support to Hezbollah and is closer in ideological terms, Syria is still an important player in the success of the militia. Syria also has ties within Lebanon other than Hezbollah. War would jeopardize their combined anti-israel efforts in that region.

My predictions are made with the assumption that there will not be regime change in Iran. ZOG doesn’t have the conventional capacity and Iran knows it. Only a devastating nuclear assault can topple Tehran. Nuking Iran has so many consequences for the US it makes it unfeasible. It would be like a card game where the ZOG player decides to rise from his chair, flip the table over and start shooting the other players. Such a break means all bets are off.

The deals we've made have absolutely everything to do with how this re-administration of Iraq will go because everything here falls along rifts that are familial and tribal. The deals cut no-doubt include which factions will be supported and which will be burned. The big winner here has been al Sadr, who has shown that it is the loyalty of young fighting men that decide a leader's political fate.

Lebanon is a client state of Iran, not Syria.

The U.S. isn't commanding the two nations to administer Iraq, it's "allowing" them to take a larger role in killing Iraqi patriots. The two nations have little choice in the matter, as they are unable to simply let just whatever happen, should we simply disappear, which is our credible threat.

Israel and the U.S. do much more business with Iran than anybody lets on.

Syrian and Irani diplomats know the U.S. wants to see them at each other's throats, but at least the Syrians are getting guarentees from the U.S. on some of the heavy-lifting. The Iranians don't care. They hate the Syrians and if some get in the way of their new project, oh well.

Iran has already guarenteed they will send in "regulars" to deal with Iraqis.

Of course ZOG will stoke the fires with "false flag" events. Hell, it's been happening since day 1 of the occupation! LOL

PS>Iran will *not* be bombed anywhere in the forseeable future over their weapons program.