some of steve’s comments reminded me of Hanson’s spoken words about the Peloponessian War. That prompted me to write an comparison and rendition on my blog. In some ways, Dan Simmon’s analogy of the Sicily Invasion is incorrect.

They, as all Americans, are entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to endangering American forces based upon bad strategy and even worse policies.

Murtha has quite proven how far you can go, at this game.

The close mindedness in steve calling any alternatives that doesn’t fit into his pre-conceived notions of adequate force projection, hysterical, is indicative of a greater problem. The problem to adapt, and not go by the “Book”.

This is represented by van, in an earlier comment thread here, when he said neo is being dishonest for saying things that van can’t argue against. In any other circumstance, that might have been termed “convincing” on Neo’s part, but people of various political spectrums are rather parochial in their outlooks.

For example, the belief that the Arabs are operating from a position of weakness, is a belief with obvious consequences because steve’s strategies drastically under-estimate the Arabs and their “position”.

In any war, there are the right people, the wrong people, and the people who second guess decisions made after the fact.

The ability to think outside the box is a critically important trait required in the leaders of the 21st century, if they are to conduct affairs with a modicum of success.

The symmetrical warfare of full scale invasion has already been demonstrated in Iraq as something that cannot win the war, in the theater. The demands for more troops, more logistics, and more drafted technicians and etc, is not a mobile assault mentality but a siege one. Where numbers matter, but initiative does not.

There are two indicators of bad judgement. Steve’s conclusion, without evidence or quotations or logic, that Steyn advocated the nuclear bombardment of Iran. The other indication is a lack of self-honesty, in van’s case for example, in considering that other people may be dishonest but that people like van are the puritans of honesty and virtue. Meaning, they consider that anyone else may deceive themselves and others, but they assume for the sake of existence that they themselves are not prone to dishonesty and deception.

These two pillars, if you will, of behavior indicates very bad judgement. Knee jerk reactionism and stubborn parochialism.

It would indeed not be fair to say that steve is calling for full draft and invasion because he wants to see more Americans die and the war a failure. Just as it is unfair for steve to say that Steyn doesn’t care how many brown people die of radiation poisoning in Iran, because Steyn wants to get back at them for the hostage situation…

The difference is, I can see and admit such unfairness. Steve can’t or won’t, and literally has not. He gave his accussations, and now he’d rather banter with grackle than state the record clean.

steve: I actually concur that we should be working for regime change in Iran. Neo: I do think you over-estimate the self-destructiveness of the Iranian regime.

Such is the judgement of steve. To evaluate this judgement, requires some perspective as listed above.

Steve himself said that he favors “regime change”. And the moment he quotes steyn calling for regime change, steve attacks steyn’s position as calling for war in retaliation for a bunch of jews killed and americans taken hostage. You call this fair, you call this honorable?

Without honesty, namely self-honesty, there is no possibility for honor. Steve will call for regime change, drafts, and full scale mobilization (which he admitted he favors), and he dares to call steyn on how many his “war” will kill. How many will your war kill, steve, as opposed to the retaliation of steyn? And can any self-honest person really believe that if a retaliation attack works to stop Iran, that they would NOT prefer it? Can they have the deaths of thousands on their conscience, if they choose NOT to take it? Perhaps they can. But Steyn and I, would not go down on that path.

Right. Go for it. Don’t worry about burying the bodies, or cleaning up the mess, afterwards. That’s someone else’s problem.

It’s the basic irresponsibility of people like steve that is the problem. They favor regime change, but they don’t feel it is their responsibility to come up with solutions that work with the least amount of costs. It seems these people either favor the biggest hammer in the world, or they favor no hammer at all like Murtha. The possibility of any “middle ground”, the possibility of any alternative solutions don’t even cross their mind. Steve said he was grateful Steyn does not hold a government position. I’m grateful there are people in government who will consider the alternatives steve dismisses, if only to limit American and Iranian casualties.

The fact remains that Steyn has essentially called for the destruction of the State of Iran: without mercy to its inhabitants, without regard to any consequences, simply to address past wrongs not commensurable to the proposed solution, and to prevent Israel from being nuked, for which he provides a very flimsy proof.

This is just hysterical rhetoric. The Cold War, which lasted over 40 years, would have lasted ten minutes if people like Steyn were in charge.

This is steve’s judgement and conclusion. I suppose his standard of fairness is to be fair to nobody but himself. This is the judgement of people who are wrong, and the wrong decisions will always cause war and destruction. Instead of self-honestly correcting their prejudiced and incorrect judgements, steve will strike back.-

I would just like to say that I am sorry, but I did not realize that giving my frank opinion about Mark Steyn’s bloodthirsty — but witty — call for the destruction of Iran was “getting in someone’s way” and keeping anyone from engaging in the kind of righteous mass killing that is apparently absolutely-necessary-before-it’s-too-late. My bad.

-In a rather gratuitous and dishonest fashion. The honor of the Corps should never concern itself with mass killings, so long as they are mass killings for the right reasons. Obviously some people can’t spend the time to have good reason for their judgements, let alone say them on the internet in little itty bitty words.People will learn far more from Steyn’s writings in the link, then they ever would from reading steve’s criticisms and outlines of his own position.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html

Grackle will retract things that he think might be wrong, about steve. But steve won’t retract things he wrongly said about Steyn. I wish people were more curious, but that’s out of anyone’s hands atm. Neo is curious, but not a lot of people are.

And that, perhaps, is the one lesson people need to learn about the asymmetrical conditions with Iran.

Although I may sharply criticize I also respect Steve’s beliefs about the war. I came to know some Marines when I was in the Navy. I served with them, got drunk with them & got a taste of Marine Corps culture. Marines are special & are entitled to be mistaken once in awhile. Steve always gets a pass on my scorn, if not my criticism.

Like the London blitz, once Churchill’s use was over, they will also sack him. Unlike Britain, Islamic rulers only abdicate power if they are dead. Which is a Good Thing tm.

The way out of this particular trap is to accept limited Iranian uranium enrichment under strict supervision and focus instead on creating really tough and effective barriers to armament. We need to verifiably freeze Iranian enrichment and other nuclear capabilities at least 18 months short of weapons capacity. This time lag should be sufficient for the U.S. and the international community to receive sufficient warning of Iran’s moves and to respond accordingly.

There’s talk of “strict supervision,” as if the Iranians would ever let anyone supervise them. If the Iranians did somehow allow outside supervisors inside their country, don’t the anti-warriors realize that honest supervisors would just be jacked around like Saddam did with his “supervisors?”

What the anti-warriors really want & what they’re really looking forward to is another 13 year period of an intractable regime mooning the West like Saddam did. They seem to enjoy having a defiant Middle Eastern despot giving the finger to the hapless West — such displays, especially if a pro-warrior is in the Whitehouse, seems to satisfy something deep inside their psyche. They’ll continue making excuses for Iran just like they’re making excuses for Saddam now.

It disappointed the anti-warriors when a submissive, unshaven & disheveled Saddam was pulled from his hole because they were well on their way to bestowing cult hero status on the butcher, just like they’ve given to bin Laden. I was watching CNN the first time Saddam appeared in court, clean shaven, neatly clothed & defiant. When the courtroom segment was over, Aaron Brown looked straight into the camera & said, “He doesn’t look so subdued now, does he,” with a sickening tone of admiration in his voice. It was one of those small moments in life which are quickly over but are defining. It was only then that I realized that the anti-warriors had actually been enjoying Saddam’s 13-year defiance, had been looking forward to a nuked-up Saddam & were hurt & disappointed when Bush stopped him.

Anti-warriors don’t like the idea of surgical strikes on Iran because such an action would produce no American casualties. They would much prefer a casualty-rich all out invasion even though they are always talking about the tragedy of casualties — you know, that garbage they come up with about keeping our ‘boys’ out of harm’s way & the anxiety they profess over collateral civilian deaths. That’s why anti-warrior pundits, without any military expertise, are currently painting any air/missile strike as useless. What they really fear is that surgical strikes would be successful & the idea of a successful Bush administration sends them into deep depression.