Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

I doubt you will. There might be a limited incursion based on large numbers of Special forces airlifted in to take control of some points that can't really be taken by bombs, but Iran will more or less totally be an air war, I would suggest.
 
I don't think it could be won via airstrikes alone. There may be a movement against the current political leadership there, but there is also a lot of animosity towards the U.S. which could unite them against us.
 
I don't think it could be won via airstrikes alone. There may be a movement against the current political leadership there, but there is also a lot of animosity towards the U.S. which could unite them against us.
That's the problem. If there's one thing everyone in Iran and most other countries in the Middle East can agree on it's that they don't want U.S. influence. The U.S. are widely seen as jew-loving, double-talking, dishonest, selfish oil junkies. And even without any anti-american sentiment one has to admit that there's a certain degree of truth in there.

Add to this that Ahmedinedshad's anti-Israel rhetorics are mostly folklore and pose to keep the mullahs at bay. All re-election campaigning aside everyone in the U.S. military, secret services and government should know that whoever will follow Ahmedinedshad after a coup will most likely be less secular.
 
Last edited:
Iran especially hasn't had a happy history with the U.S. Look up Operation AJAX, Iran Flight 655, and the Iraqi-Iranian war for an idea of why they might not trust us.
 
I don't think it could be won via airstrikes alone. There may be a movement against the current political leadership there, but there is also a lot of animosity towards the U.S. which could unite them against us.

I don't think regime change is even remotely plausible as it is. It's politically impossible (both domestically and internationally visa-vi the UN and allies), militarily difficult (numerically and in terms of resistance, Iraq has given the US a bloody nose) and economically disasterous (Afghanistan + Iraq + Corn subsidies + Social Security + Iran? No way).

But striking key points to kill off their nuclear program, combined with small incursions of special forces where needed, I would have very little reason to doubt, as long as it is militarily possible. And it probably is. One thing the US does well is air supremacy, and development of bunker buster munitions and payloads seem to have been a priority, just because of the potential need to fuck up nuclear facilities in 'rogue' nations.
 
That's the problem. If there's one thing everyone in Iran and most other countries in the Middle East can agree on it's that they don't want U.S. influence. The U.S. are widely seen as jew-loving, double-talking, dishonest, selfish oil junkies. And even without any anti-american sentiment one has to admit that there's a certain degree of truth in there.

Add to this that Ahmedinedshad's anti-Israel rhetorics are mostly folklore and pose to keep the mullahs at bay. All re-election campaigning aside everyone in the U.S. military, secret services and government should know that whoever will follow Ahmedinedshad after a coup will most likely be less secular.


Hmmm, could this be the newest understatement on FG?

Iran especially hasn't had a happy history with the U.S. Look up Operation AJAX, Iran Flight 655, and the Iraqi-Iranian war for an idea of why they might not trust us.


The US does have a "sorted" history in the region and in many other regions in the world. The government and it's individual agencies (CIA, I am looking at you) never seem to understand the history they have left behind and how that affects the world. The US needs to get out of the business of messing with other countries.
 
The funny thing about the CIA and Iran is that for years they thought the CIA was helping the Shah disappear people, but during the revolution they found only three guys none of whom knew Farsi. Never assume the CIA is competent.
 
Never assume the CIA is competent.

Read this book and you're not in danger of assuming that anymore:

51qrPWpbewL._SS500_.jpg


It is not an easy read and not complete but nobody denies the accuracy and truth about what is written there. The only question is: Can any success outweight that much incompetence?
 
Read this book and you're not in danger of assuming that anymore:

51qrPWpbewL._SS500_.jpg


It is not an easy read and not complete but nobody denies the accuracy and truth about what is written there. The only question is: Can any success outweight that much incompetence?

I think I already recommended it somewhere in these political forums a year or so ago. :p
 
Yes, I did as well... about 2 years ago. Something in common finally? :blink:
 
We both listen to No Agenda? :p
 
I'm quite sure the CIA managed a lot of successes. But most of it probably happened with regards to the Soviet Union, heck, they probably managed to get at least one high level Kremlin source, just by statistical probobility (not to mention what they got out Easter Europe).

They might have done some good. But they made enough mistakes, particularily with respect to their disgusting meddeling in South America and the Middle East, and some parts of Asia.

In the end, you need them. Even if the most crucial thing they do would most likely be looking at open sources or what they can see from space, and analyzing them. As I am not the DDO, I don't know if they've gotten better at HumInt, but I would suggest that has been a priority in the last decade. I think the reason the CIA failed so miserably at times was the fact they lacked HumInt and got lulled by their overhead intelligence.
 
The KGB was quite apt at tricking the CIA. The Berlin Tunnel for instance was known to them before work on it had begun. Then there is the pure batshit crazy of MKULTRA and laughably bad intelligence of Team B. I could go on, and on, and on, and on...
 
The KGB and GRU were probably the best in the world, second best in Europe was probably the French/East Germans/West Germans, and I suppose you would be wrong to underestimate Mossad and the different palestinian intelligence services.

But it would be impossible for the CIA to be so rubbish they didn't manage anything.
 
Read the book.
 
Read the book.

I might do some day when I've read all the other books people on the internet have asked me to read to be able to debate any given theme with them (no disrespect intended, but believe me when I say it would probably occupy me for two months and cost the equivalent of a used car), but do keep in mind that even if the book doesn't lie, it does not mean it tells the whole truth.

Intelligence operations are secret for a reason, they work best that way. And it might very well be much truth in the old adage that the CIA have very public failures and very private successes. As I am not (for some crazy reason!) privy to the CIA archives (I believe they said something about it not being within my pervue, trust the CIA to make up a bullshit reason), I can't say what successes they've had in private, because, as an intelligence organization, they tend to want to keep it secret.

You think they'd tell us if they had a source in the Kremlin? Heck, either the source may have been in the crowd around Yeltzin (and in that case, he/she might still be very relevant), or he or she may have been in the crowd around the more hard line communists (and in that case, the CIA knows the communists might one day retake power, and make the source relevant), they might have had people in the crowd surrounding Putin for all we know, and for obvious reasons, they would not reveal who they were or even the existance of any source at all.

I won't say I'm as well read on the failures of the CIA as anybody who has spent considerable time looking at them, but then again, my general and overreaching interest in covert intelligence does mean I've been across a lot of them. It's never really important to know the exact numbers of failures and be able to name every large aspect of failure (which I am perfectly able to do on other themes, nothing wrong with that), knowing the general form of failure will suffice for poetry, I suppose.

Just my .02
 
It's not a problem if you don't have time to read the book. I have yet to see any proof that the CIA isn't a Micky Mouse Operation. I'm doubting that they have a secret history of success that has been hidden from us, but I'm an atheist who doesn't put blind faith into things.
 
I'm just saying, that with the amount of money, but more importantly man power the CIA has used since world war 2, it would be quite mindboggingly improbable that they would have achieved NOTHING.
 
It's not a problem if you don't have time to read the book. I have yet to see any proof that the CIA isn't a Micky Mouse Operation. I'm doubting that they have a secret history of success that has been hidden from us, but I'm an atheist who doesn't put blind faith into things.

You don't need blind faith. The CIA has had big public successes in the recent past. The tracking down and killing of Bin Laden was a CIA led effort. The CIA also knew very well where Bin Laden was before and after 9/11, and was responsible for tracking him to Tora Bora. The only reason that ended up a failure was due to the military and its unwillingness to commit the troops needed at the CIA's behest.

Overall, you can't expect an organization like the CIA to survive without proving its worth. The nature of the CIA also means that its successes are unlikely to be known to the public, as intelligence gathering and covert operations are, by nature, continuously progressing. Only when the CIA does something wrong can you expect stories to be published. To say the CIA is overloaded with failures is, in my opinion, a very blind and narrow view of the situation.

On the point of the KGB, its not surprising if they come off as superior. The Russian's have the longest, most continuous, and most successful intelligence and covert organization history in the west and possibly the world. They have continuously had active intelligence organizations dating back to Peter the Great, whereas every other major western power (including the US) only really cared about intelligence during times of war, despite the history of failure due to this. It wasn't until WW2 that the US and Britain committed themselves to a strong and everlasting intelligence effort.

Lastly, the vast majority of intelligence efforts is banal. Intercepting daily cables, collecting information from diplomats, tracking the movement of military units, government officials, and various other targets is the mainstay of any intelligence organization. Running coups, covert operations, and other hollywood style actions, no matter how many examples there are, is a small amount of what they do. Thus, the ultimate success of any intelligence organization just isn't going to be written about.
 
The problem with the CIA is that it does "hollywood style actions". As a purely intelligence gathering operation I wouldn't have too many issues. But Dulles set the precedent of commando style missions and they have been continuing to do them since to great failure.
 
Top