The Bosque Boys

I think you are right, Gardener. However, our inability to intimidate Iran and Syria flows from our inability to secure Iraq quickly. As for the planning, we expected to make much quicker progress at a much lower cost. That was the fundamental flaw in planning.

Instead, we tread water with an army at the breaking point, with a nation hopelessly divided over the mission and politicians on all sides of the aisle scrambling to save their sinecures.

If things had gone as planned (quickly and forcefully), we would not have heard a peep out of Iran and Syria. They would have been very quiet trying to avoid the hammer. They are brave now because they understand that we are completely lacking the ability to prosecute another military action; they have correctly determined that they have carte blanche.

Their boldness is a result of our inability rather than a source of our inability.

One more thing;

A military strike against Iran right now would probably mean civil war in the USA.

Picking up where Farmer's point leaves off, there is a very real sense in which the botched operation in Iraq (a nation which I hope we can all concede was a dubious threat at the time of invasion) has entirely precluded our engagement with the very legitimate threat of Iran. This option has been precluded because this administration has burned up all of its poitical capital on the issue of Iraq.

Couple this with the ironic fact that the phenomenal recent rise of Iran as a major regional threat is directly commensurate with the elimination of Iraq, which served as Iran's "natural predator" so to speak for over 30 years and whose ugly presence maintained a rather healthy balance of power.

Piggy-backing on Tocqueville's thought in re balance of power: the rise of Iran, again, ironically, makes it completely necessary for the United States to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis are once again a counter weight to Iran.

Final Irony: while the Iraq project perhaps confirms, once and for all, the folly of Wilsonian Idealism, the failure also assures that any American President driven by "Realism" will need to stay there until the cows come home.

Farmer, one of the reasons violence continues at the present rate in Iraq is the flow of men and material from and through Iran and Syria. Iraq will not be solved until Syria and Iran are dealt with. It always was a package deal.

Gardener: What do you propose?

To the extent that Syria, Iran, and Iraq were a "package deal," I can't help but wonder whether we opened the package at the wrong end?

Farmer calls me out, to propose specific steps to take on Syria and Iran. Some suggestions: Syria is ruled by a dictator (a member of a minority sect within Syria) who understands only force. I do not think we need to occupy and pacify Syria--just make a promise and keep it that the cost to the regime will be intolerable if they continue to allow men and material to funnel into Iraq. Perhaps destroying their air force as a first promise made and kept. Iran: the regime is inherently unstable and revolution is always a possiblity. We have now more than enough evidence of Iranian weapons, training, and support for those in Iraq killing Americans. These efforts are conducted by the Revolutionary Guards. Make them a military target. This would have the added benefit of weakening the regime which depends upon the Guards to provide it with military support in the same way the Nazis depended upon the SS.

Thanks, Gardener.

Your proposal (ultimatums backed up by acts of war) is well-reaasoned and probably the right thing to do, if we were not where we are.

My thoughts on why your proposal is problematic:

1. Because of our diminished capacity, the Syrians and/or Iranians will likely call our bluff.

2. Putting our money where our mouth is means war.

3. We are not in political shape to fight an extended war in the Middle East.

Okie;

How secure is the Syrian dictator in his power
Is there potential for his power to be threatened if either he was seen to be 'bowing' to US pressure
or
if Syria were attacked militarily by the US?

These geopolitical parlor games are useful to a point, but it seems everyone is glossing over Farmer's central and unassailable point. The question "what if Syria (or Iran) were attacked by the United States" is a very provocative hypothetical, with much to commend that course of action. But the political reality is that the United States (and her politicians) have neither the stomach nor the political will to launch any new military action.

This is THE problem. And any solution must begin by acknowledging these limitations.