Stalingrad II -- or Armageddon?

[arisbe]

"In Iraq and Afghanistan, the “coalition” defeats continue slowly to unroll. In Lebanon, it appears Hezbollah may win not only at the moral and mental, strategic and operational levels, but, astonishingly, at the physical and tactical levels as well. That outcome remains uncertain, but the fact that it is possible portends a revolutionary reassessment of what Fourth Generation forces can accomplish. If it actually happens, the walls of the temple that is the state system will be shaken world-wide."
...
"To the region, America’s apparently unconditional and unbounded support for Israel and its occupation of Iraq are part of the same picture. For a military historian, the question arises: will history see Iraq as America’s Stalingrad? If we kick the analogy up a couple of levels, to the strategic and grand strategic, there are parallels. Both the German and the American armies were able largely to take, but not hold, the objective. Both had too few troops. Both Berlin and Washington underestimated their enemy’s ability to counter-attack. Both committed resources they needed elsewhere and could not replace to a strategically unimportant objective. Finally, both entrusted their flanks to weak allies—and to luck." -- William Lind Thanks to nebris for the tipoff.

---

This is truly ominous, for a reason Lind does not note. Bush has more options than Hitler -- to attack Iran with strategic weapons, for one. This would most likely send Iranian ground forces over the border into Iraq, especially if they were liberated from central control. And that would be the end of that. And it could well provoke a revolution in Pakistan which would put strategic nuclear weapons, designed for India but probably by now aimed at Israel as well, in the hands of bin Laden or his followers. The only way to counter this would be to induce India to launch a first strike. Are our rulers that crazy? Or do they believe, some of them, that what is for us a worst case scenario would bring Jesus back on clouds of glory to set them up on thrones of judgement over the masses of the damned?

Comments

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

Choice three, the one I pick: They're stupid.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Let's keep fingers and toes crossed.

[lhasa7.livejournal.com]

Well, I’ve been following Lind’s writings for several years now and although I still respect his intelligence, I have found his predictive capacities to be less perfect than his tone would imply. He’s also very fond of drawing historical parallels that don’t always play out.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Yes. As I said, the Stalingrad parallel is not exact, and it would lead to bad predictions. But I salute Lind's advocacy of the Fourth Generation concept, which all two few of our policy wonks really understand, especially the neocons.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

I know I'm going to get flamed for daring to ask this, but I can't help myself:

If America's support for Israel is unconditional and unbounded, then why is the US in support of the cease-fire? That certainly doesn't help Israel.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

A significant number of Israelis seem to think it does.

(Does that count as a flame?)

[amp23.livejournal.com]

The US was not in support of a ceasefire until overwhelming world outcry forced them to stop being one of the only 3 countries not calling for a cease-fire (the other two being israel and britain).

I believe they were polled into changing their position, something that has marked many of the major shifts in position of the Bush administrating (notably the independent 9/11 commission, the corporate accountability measures of 2002, and the Valerie Plame investigation all of which Bush or officials spoke against until public opinion turned them).

[amade.livejournal.com]

Hey, Frank:

I don't know if you read the blog, Respectful Insolence, at all, but you might check out the following article:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/one_of_the_annoying_talk_radio_rants_ive.php#more