[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

If the military has learned anything from Iraq (and it is patently ridiculous to say nothing has been learned), it's how to get involved with the local people, earn their trust, and use them as informants to flush out insurgents. This is a skill very few of our soldiers had four years ago, but after three years in Iraq the troops are getting real good at gathering and applying intelligence. The field commanders are learning a lot too, and if anybody can predict what's going to happen and what needs to be done in Iran, it's definitly them. Knowing what they know, they'll be making the case to their superiors and to the president that military action in Iran would be a serious mistake, ten-fold worse than the mistake you think the Iraq war has been.

actually, my point is that it is the Bush administration has learned little from Iraq (at least not they are willing to admit publicly) - no doubt the military has learned much. but as far as "making their case", well, the administration is not famous for it's open-door policies. case in point:

The Bush administration's decision to move thousands of U.S. soldiers into Baghdad to quell sectarian warfare before it explodes into outright civil war underscores a problem that's hindered the American effort to rebuild Iraq from the beginning: There aren't enough troops to do the job.

Many U.S. officials in Baghdad and in Washington privately concede the point. They say they've been forced to shuffle American units from one part of the country to another for at least two years because there haven't been enough soldiers and Marines to deal simultaneously with Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias; train Iraqi forces; and secure roads, power lines, border crossings and ammunition dumps.

. . . "This is exactly what happens when there aren't enough troops: You extend people and you deplete your theater reserve," said an American defense official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.

During embedded reporting trips beginning in the summer of 2003 - which included time with troops from eight Army divisions, an armored cavalry regiment and several Marine units -- yours truly a McClatchy reporter was told repeatedly that more manpower was needed.

. . Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers are willing to discuss their concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There's an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn't want to hear about the need for more troops.

"They're not allowed to ask for more troops," the U.S. defense official in Iraq said. "If you say something you're gone, you're relieved, you're not in the Army anymore" - Tom Lasseter, Knight Ridder McClatchy Newspapers

there is not much reason to believe the administration, led largely by people with no miltary experience, will pay heed to the military.

Originally Posted by RDixon

I am not making predictions about the us invading iran.

I am merely pointing out the people who seem hell bent on doing that no matter the cost.

My personal belief is that Bush knows that invading Iran without a formal declaration of war from Congress would be a dangerous act.

It is also my belief that if they start another illegal war, there will be turmoil in this country the likes of which have not been seen here since 1770.

agreed.