Dear readers, it is important to note that Pearl Harbor has not been struck by the Japanese in a second sneak attack.
Eh?
Well, the reason I note that is that event was the last one which caused the United States to declare war on anyone. Sure, we've fought several undeclared conflicts since then, one, or two, of which were illegally fought in that they required, in my view, a declaration of war, but there's no risk of "World War III".
None the less, some in the Press are even kicking around World War III headlines, which provides evidence of why people who are deeply informed on any one topic tend to take the Press with a very high dose of salt.
At the same time, we'd note, basically historical ignorance combined with people's basic love of panic, and people do love a good panic, is contributing to the complete and utter nonsense that's circulating right now.
Okay, what's this about and what's really going on, to the extent we know.
Death from above. Starting with the Obama Administration and continuing now onto the Trump Administration individual enemies of the US and those near them have found themselves alive one moment and in eternity the next through strikes conducted by Predator drones, such as this one in Iraq. Last week Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani found himself in the situation of flying into Baghdad to consult with those he lead in the name of the spread of Shia Islam to being in the next world and finding out if the 7th Century founder of Islam was right. . or wrong. . . or perhaps a now greatly misunderstood Gnostic preacher who wasn't sending a message as now understood.
Last week President Trump, without informing Congress, ordered a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani, in an acting of stunning hubris, flew into a nation where Iran maintains client militias in the Iranian's government effort to subvert the Middle East for the purpose of spreading the Shia theocracy, even while its own people are leaving Islam in droves and declaring they've had enough of the Shia theocracy.
Indeed, were the Iranian government lead by men with flexible minds overall, they'd democratize the country immediately, which would give Shia fundamentalism a much better chance of retaining influence in Iran, assuming its not too late, than their current course. The course they're on right now will result in the secularization of the nation through disgust, sooner or later, and an educated Iranian population is already well into the process of pondering Islam's contradictions and problems.
But that's not the course of action they're going to take. They're going to go down with the ship, and make it worse for themselves.
And part of that is sponsoring guerrilla war against all sorts of forces and states in the region, including subverting the Iraqi government and sponsoring militias there.
Gen. Qasem Soleimani had been instrumental in it and he met a fate he basically deserved.
He deserved it as he was an instrument in a struggle that depended at its core on Iran's opponents not behaving like Iran. And just like the rude motorist who finds himself cutoff by a tow truck driver who has had enough, Iran is complaining about it.
Citing Gasoline Alley may seem odd here, but in essence, Iran is behaving like Doc.
Iran of course feels this way as its been allowed to. Western powers have restrained themselves from taking on the theocracy since its first creation, no matter how difficult that nation has been, for a variety of reasons. And there's real logic to that approach. Sooner or later, Iran's going to collapse under its own oppressive weight and the problem will be solved.
None of which means that anyone must tolerate their violent misbehavior in the meantime.
Which also doesn't mean that killing a top general of their's is wise
Indeed, all of this is very problematic. For one thing, it's extremely odd to be using killer drones over the downtown street of a country you theoretically are aiding. Indeed, as we are the guest, and they are the host, we presumably would want permission to act in this fashion.
We didn't get that, and we wouldn't have received it either. Iran has strong influence in the Iraqi government.
Additionally, flat out killing an Iranian general in this fashion, while technologically impressive and oddly honest in a way as well, isn't really strategically sound for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is that overall any one general's ability to influence the long term outcome of a struggle is always questionable.
Even if he is key, however, doing it outright will cause the Iranian people to rally to their government, no matter how much they might otherwise detest it. Deeply Orthodox Russian soldiers fought for the atheistic Soviet Union heroically, as Mother Russia had been attacked.
Red Army soldier, likely a Soviet Pole, and a Catholic, during World War Two.
And while it may be a bad or disturbing example, German soldiers fought tooth and nail during the final months of World War Two against the advancing Soviets. Viet Cong solders, increasingly youthful as the war went on, fought hard in the 1970s for a cause they only understood loosely at best simply because the other side was there, in their concept of another side.
The point is that this actually may serve to prolong the struggle with Iran.
Which is why, if it was necessary, most nation's would have gone about this differently. In Baghdad nobody would have though much of a couple of RPG rockets slamming into a car followed by concluding bursts of AKM (AK47) fire. It'd look like another Iraqi militia had done it.
Indeed, a colleague of mine who had once been a Navy SEAL told me that in his day, for sidearms they carried Browning Hi Powers. They were used by so many nations at that time that if one was dropped, you could never tell what military had been there.
This assumes, of course, that it was necessary to kill Soleimani, which is a big assumption. It's difficult for me to see how that would have been true. Of course, the New York Times is now declaring he was no big deal, but the Times, like Chuck Todd, has become so partisan its lost all objectivity. Suffice it to say, however, taking us to a higher level of conflict with Iran right now really raises some questions.
One question it doesn't raise is whether or not we're going into "World War III".
There's actually some outright moronic speculation of this type. On Twitter, for example, the Twitter Twits are causing this to trend today:
#Iranattack
Trending with: #IranUsa, #WWIIl
That's just silly.
But perhaps not as silly as this:
Eh gads, any narcissistic fool who seriously is calling the Selective Service as they think there's going to be a resumption of conscription is truly a bed wetter. Head out of the phone bucko, and read some real history.
There isn't even going to be a conventional war between Iran and the United States. Iran would loose it and they know that. All of which makes the public freaking out about this downright dumb.
Indeed, probably the most amusing freak out was that of Rose McGowan. She's an actress, and therefore is part of the vapid set, who posted a gif of an Iranian flag with a sunny and a smiling bear, or something, on it, with this text:
Deaar #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani
That's really stupid.
That it was stupid became pretty obvious really quickly and she began to back-peddle enduing up with this:
Ok, so I freaked out because we may have any impending war. Sometimes it’s okay to freak out on those in power. It’s our right. That is what so many Brave soldiers have fought for. That is democracy. I do not want any more American soldiers killed. That’s it.
Oh horse sh**. This was an example of vapidness blowing up on the commentator. There's a lot of it around right now. And its just not very smart.
There's going to be no conventional war with Iran. We aren't going to engage in one, and the Iranians aren't either. Neither side, in fact, could easily do it, but it it occurred, it would be the end of the Iranian theocracy, and they likely know deep down that its winding down anyhow and they don't want to accelerate that. At some foreseeable point in the near future the Shiite mullahs of Iran will have the same level of influence on Iran that the Church of Sweden has over that county's affairs. That's not to say none, in either case, but it won't be what it is now.
Speculation about the effectiveness of the Iranian military has been rampant for a really long time, but the best evidence is that it isn't. The common citation to their effectiveness is the example of their war that Iraq fought with Iran from 1980 to 1988 in which both sides actually demonstrated a raving level of military incompetence.
Fighting to a draw with modern weapons and World War One technology isn't an example of military prowess. At that time Iran had a western trained 1970s vintage military with 1970s vintage military equipment and Iraq had a Soviet trained 1970s vintage military with 1970s vintage military equipment. Both side managed to forget their training nearly immediately and fought with their respective 1970s equipment as if it was 1917.
Iran still has 1970s equipment but now are largely internally trained and, in a conventional war, would be even less competent than they were in the 1980s, much like the Iraqis were in the 1990s and 2000s. And they likely have no illusion about being able to fight anyone.
Iranian F-14s in the 1980s. The F-14 was a great plane, but old airplanes with no parts don't stay great and technology has moved on.
Indeed, they don't really try. The Iranians like asymmetrical, irregular war, and that's what we'll likely see. But we will see that.
Which does bring us back around to a more tense situation. Will Iran try to close the Persian Gulf and what will the Europeans do if they do (they depend on it being open more than we do)? Will Iran ramp up terrorism?
Indeed, the latter appears to be a certainty, as Iran has already stated that its retaliation will be "against military sites". That's worrying, but what that suggest is that they'll engage in asymmetrical war at a calculated level. Basically, like Arab nations did with Israel for decades. Just enough violence to not really provoke a war terminating their state.
All of which means that this will go on, most likely, for years. . . depending upon our reaction, which is proving to be the difficult one right now. And that's the weird situation that Iran finds itself in. Like a habitual rude driver, they suddenly find themselves having angered somebody who appears to be irrational and are now in the "oh crap. . . did that tow truck driver cut me off and is he getting out of the cab with a beer and a gun. . . ?" Nobody knows what any reaction from the United States will be right now.
Including Americans.
But it won't involve World War Three and it won't involve conscription.
It'll be more analogous to the the long Arab Israeli struggle, at least for the time being. Which means that panicked might have to do a little studying.
