reply to post by Gorman91
I agree with some thing's that you say, but I disagree with most. Not by the way you present it, but because of the fact that you take a lot as
certain when everything in politics and strategy is anything but straight-forward.
For instance, you talk about invading a failed state, that no country does it and it makes no sense doing it.
Then, in that case, how do you explain Iraq? Iraq was a functional and active state before Desert Storm. I'm aware that they were only attacked
because of the invasion to Kuwait, but Desert Storm brought Iraq to the ground.
If they were already in trouble, already becoming a failed state due to the same exact sanctions Iran is getting, and due to the exact same type of
isolation policy that Iran is suffering from, then what your argument for the U.S. invading it a second time? (I don't really call Desert Storm an
invasion, it wasn't an effective invasion)
By your logic the U.S. and it's allies would have left Iraq alone, since they were a "failed state".
In my point of view, that's exactly when you do the attacks. When people are hungry and weak, when the opposing forces are low on moral and even
lower in organization, etc....
If we look back at Iraq, we saw a major confrontation first (Desert Storm), followed by a international "attack" on it's economy with sanctions and
cut of diplomatic ties, and a growing feeling of international isolation. Then we had the whole "they have WMD's" episode, that pushed the idea of
an offensive forward. They called it a pre-emptive attack, if you care to remember.
What happened? The weakned regime gave no resistance, to the point where the "holy" president of Iraq was found later in a hole no bigger than my
clothes closet. The resistance we see, according to reports, comes mostly from groups outside of Iraq that seized the opportunity for assymetric
warfare against the U.S., and I have no doubts there were people there studying U.S. military capabilities.
Using Iraq as a comparisson, Iran is going exactly down the same path. Until the recent implementation of the sanctions, Iran had a stable economy
capable of offering a stiff resistance to any western country that attempted an attack (being an invasion or pre-emptive attack).
What do you have now? A country that is in international isolation, with a hand-full of allies (questionable allies), crippled by sanctions and deals
that are cut by the UN laws, and it appears that everyone is stepping up the idea of Iran having WMD's, even more serious that what Iraq was supposed
If countries don't invade when states are in bankrupcy or weakned, they have done it before with Iraq. And if they have done it with Iraq, I don't
see why they wouldn't go for the same measures against Iran.
And we could also address the issue of Afghanistan. I don't think anyone saw Afghanistan as a "non-failed state" at the time, much the opposite.
They seemed to have failed even in the most simple humanitarian causes.