COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, March 15, 2013

During the past 30 years a worrying trend has emerged: high levels of spending under Republican administrations have become institutionalized in Democratic ones.



High Levels of Government Spending Become Status Quo


This week’s chart shows the amount of real (2005) federal dollars spent per capita over the past 68 years. After adjusting for population and inflation, the data clearly show that federal outlays have, with a few exceptions, grown at a staggering pace since 1948.
The first Truman budget spent $4,312 per person. Government spending per person decreased for the next two years and in 1948 hit a historic low of $1,918—a low that has not been matched in six decades. Today’s spending per person is more than five times this amount.
By the end of the Truman administration per-capita spending had risen back almost to the levels of Truman’s first budget, and it continued to increase under the next few presidents. Kennedy began his term by raising per-person spending to $3,790. Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton all began their presidencies with higher per-person spending than their predecessors had ended with.
George H. W. Bush oversaw a decline in per-capita spending, which fell from $7,326 to $7,147 over four years. He is the only president since Kennedy whose last budget spent less per capita than his first budget. That trend was reversed under Clinton and George W. Bush, whose last budgets spent $7,267 and $10,337 per person, respectively. However, as the chart shows, the increase in spending during Clinton’s two terms was very slight.
While some of the spending in fiscal year 2009 was a result of President Obama’s so-called stimulus bill, President Bush is still responsible for most of it. Some people might argue that this chart illustrates that the current president is fiscally responsible, that he is not a big spender, or even that the government doesn’t have a spending problem. Those are not correct interpretations.
The chart shows that spending has not increased as quickly under Obama as it did under the previous administration. In fact, it has even fallen slightly, at least for the moment. But the federal government is still spending an enormous amount of money—significantly more than in 2008, and in every single year before that. The fact that the government isn’t quite as bloated as it was at its peak—or not getting fatter as fast as it was before—doesn’t mean the government is lean. Moreover, a recent Mercatus chart of Congressional Budget Office projections shows that the trend of decreasing spending is unlikely to continue.
The chart below and accompanying table also show a country addicted to spending increases. Every president has spent more total real dollars in his last budget than in his first. Johnson increased spending by 38 percent, George W. Bush increased it by 53 percent, and even Reagan increased total spending by 22 percent.
This country needs to start making real and credible commitments to cutting government spending.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Who are the Jesuits? The society is the largest male order in the world, with members at work in more than a 100 countries around the world - Jesuits have had to wait almost five centuries to see one of their number elevated to the highest post in the Catholic Church.







Who exactly are the Jesuits?

Pope Francis is the first pontiff recruited from the Society of Jesus – a group known best for its members' practicality

The Guardian, Thursday 14 March 2013 14.38 EDT
An old joke tells of a Franciscan, a Dominican and a Jesuit who are arrested during the Russian revolution for spreading the Christian, capitalist gospel, and thrown into a dark prison cell. In a bid to restore the light, each man reflects on the traditions of his own order.
The Franciscan decides to wear sackcloth and ashes and pray for light. Nothing happens. The Dominican prepares and delivers an hour-long lecture on the virtue of light. Nothing happens. Then the Jesuit gets up and mends the fuse. The light comes on.
As the payoff suggests, the Society of Jesus has always been known for practicality and unflappability in the service of its motto: Ad Maiorem Dei gloriam (for the greater glory of God). Equally well known is the Jesuits' reputation as educators – giving rise to the adage: "Give me a child of seven, and I will show you the man."
The society was founded by the Basque nobleman, soldier and future saint, Ignatius of Loyola, who turned to religion after a French cannonball mangled his leg in Pamplona in 1521. Despite attracting the interest of the inquisition, the Company of Jesus, as it was known at first, secured papal approval in 1540.
The term Jesuit – originally used pejoratively to describe someone who was too ready to use or appropriate the name of Jesus – was never employed by Loyola himself and was adopted only later. Nor were the Jesuits the initial agents of the Spanish Inquisition, which was run by the Dominicans when it was established in 1480.
Central to the order's philosophy are the spiritual exercises set down by Loyola, which offer a means for the individual to learn more about themselves and God through prayer and guidance from a director.
Such fortitude and focus was needed by the Jesuits, whose early missionary work took them through Protestant Europe and as far afield as the New World, Japan, Tibet and Goa. Although the 20,000-strong society is mainly comprised of priests, there are also 2,000 Jesuit brothers, and almost 4,000 scholastics – or men studying for the priesthood.
They are organised into 91 geographical "provinces", which are each overseen by a provincial superior, who answers to the head of the society, the superior general.
But despite their numbers and global presence – the society is the largest male order in the world, with members at work in more than a 100 countries around the world - Jesuits have had to wait almost five centuries to see one of their number elevated to the highest post in the Catholic church.
Although they take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience Jesuits have historically been viewed with suspicion in Rome and elsewhere, and seen as a group that is a little too practical, a little too independent, and a little too powerful for its own good.
In Elizabethan England, Jesuits were reviled as the embodiment of the Catholic threat-from-within, ruthlessly persecuted and even dragged into the gunpowder plot.
In the new world, their defence of the indigenous peoples they had converted to Catholicism put them at odds with the Spanish and Portuguese governments, who saw their behaviour as a hindrance to their economic interests in the area.
By the mid to late 18th century, the order had become so feared and despised that it was suppressed in many parts of the world, only to be re-established by Pope Pius VII in 1814.
In the late 20th century some Latin American Jesuits echoed their predecessors by angering Rome through their embrace of liberation theology, in which Christ's teachings are interpreted in relation to the politics and economics of poverty. Among those who rejected the movement, which was later fiercely condemned by the Vatican under John Paul II, was an Argentinian Jesuit priest named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.



__________________________________________

Pope Francis begins tenure with warning

First Latin American pontiff warns that troubled Church could "end up a compassionate NGO" unless it undergoes renewal.

Last Modified: 15 Mar 2013 00:47 AlJazeera

Pope Francis has warned in his first Mass that the troubled Catholic Church risked becoming little more than a charity with no spiritual foundations if it failed to undergo renewal.
Addressing the cardinals who elected him as Latin America's first pope, the 76-year-old Argentinian said on Thursday the Church could "end up a compassionate NGO", using an Italian word that can also mean "pitiful".
"I would like all of us after these days of grace to have the courage to walk in the presence of the Lord," Francis said, amid the splendour of the Sistine Chapel.
He warned the cardinals against "the worldliness of the Devil".
"Walking, building and confessing are not so easy. Sometimes there are tremors," the pope said, in a homily that will be scrutinised for clues to the style of his leadership.
The new head of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, who was formerly known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, had begun his reign by meeting people in Rome and laying a bouquet of flowers in homage to the Virgin Mary in a basilica.
The pope also prayed at the altar of St Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order to which he belongs.
He returned to the priests' quarters where he stayed before the conclave and settled his own bill.
Riches shunned
The election of the son of a railway worker, who was considered an outsider, was met with widespread surprise and expressions of hope for change in a Church riven by scandal and internal conflict.
It was also seen as recognition of the Church's power in Latin America, which now accounts for 40 percent of the world's Catholics, in contrast to its decline in Europe.
"The choice of Bergoglio shows that the Church is determined not to remain in mourning for the crisis in Europe but has opened its doors to the revitalising energy of Catholicism's biggest continent," Vatican expert Luigi Accatoli told the AFP news agency.
Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman, reporting from the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires, said that Francis revealed what he would have done if elected as pope, in an interview with an Argentinian journalist, shortly before he left to the Vatican. 
"One of the things he said he would have done is to eradicate the corruption from the 'guilded palaces' of the Vatican. He also said that the Vatican Bank needs to be cleaned up and made transparent immediately, and that 'everyone knew' who the corrupt cardinals were in the Vatican," said Newman. 
"So he clearly plans to do some serious housecleaning, now that he is in charge," she added.
Projecting an image as a simple man of the people, the pope chose to name himself after St Francis of Assisi, the 13th-century saint who shunned the riches of his family to devote himself to God and the poor.
The Vatican revealed that, for the ride back to the conclave lodgings after Wednesday's election, Francis shunned the papal limousine with the "Vatican City State One" number plates, opting instead to board a minibus with the cardinals.
It was in keeping with his image as a man who as archbishop of Buenos Aires chose to live in a modest apartment rather than the official residence and took buses to work.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Jorge Mario Bergoglio becomes Pope Francis I: White smoke from Sistine Chapel heralds shock decision to elect first Latin American, first Jesuit and first Francis to lead world’s Catholics. Does it matter to Catholics or anyone else?


Expect Changes from Pope Francis

SUN NEWS NETWORK - CANADA
TORONTO -- So that's that.
The smoke has cleared -- literally and figuratively -- and a new Pope will wear the mantle Vicar of Christ.
The work of 115 mortals in the Sistine Chapel anointed a man who is expected to exercise a divine link to God, but what temporal challenges lie ahead?
More importantly, what brave new world will his Roman Catholic flock of 1.2 billion be expected to help create with a fresh man at the helm?
Expect change, change and yet more change from Argentine Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has taken the name Pope Francis.
In the 21st century, the age of the encyclical is dead. Twitter has replaced it as a means of mass communication.
Relentless change like that means the world is being buffeted by a seemingly endless cycle of corruption, economic crises, social unrest and sex scandal at the very highest level.
The Catholic Church is not above any of those charges. That was acknowledged before the start of the conclave that chose the 76-year-old Archbishop of Buenos Aires.
The dean of the College of Cardinals celebrated the papacy as a unique driver of unity among Catholics and of evangelization and charitable service to the world, before seeking guidance in "a troubled and troubling time."
Christ "has established his apostles and among them Peter, who takes the lead, as the visible foundation of the unity of the church," Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Tuesday in his homily at St. Peter's Basilica.
To take that lead, this 266th successor to St. Peter must first face the sex scandals that are defining his church.
The behaviour and integrity of clergy has fallen in the public estimation as sex disgraces have rocked the church from Italy to the U.S., Canada, Ireland, England, Scotland, Australia and most points in between.
The rotten core at the heart of that abuse crisis must be excised.
The future of the church turns on its ability to govern itself. Nobody can trust an organization that fails to fulfil that simple task.
Then there is a dwindling of the faithful.
The Catholic Church is hemorrhaging overall numbers, even as followers increase in South America and Africa. Gains in these two areas cannot balance the bleeding of worshippers from what was once called the Old World.
As recently as 1910, nearly two-thirds of all Catholics resided in Europe. Today that number has dropped to only 24%.
To address that task problem, the immediate job of Pope Francis will be to make his church relevant without abandoning its doctrinal core.
Two steps on that long journey require addressing Rome's stance on homosexuality and abortion. Both topics are fiercely controversial for followers.
Today, about one in 10 American Catholics born into the religion has left it, according to a 2009 Pew Research Centre poll.
Pew reports that more than half of them cite unhappiness with the church's stance on those two topics alone. About 70% say they simply drifted away.
Another problem is the Vatican itself. A secret report by three cardinals in the wake of the Vatileaks stolen documents scandal is waiting in the Papal in-tray.
Church insiders say it holds allegations of a blackmail plot aimed at a circle of gay priests in the Holy City.
Depending on the contents, still seen only by Pope Benedict and now Francis, his successor, it could open the way for a revamp of senior Vatican officials.
Before his shock departure, Pope Benedict spoke of the church facing a world of "rapid changes" whose faith has been "shaken."
Whatever its current difficulties, the Roman Catholic Church has proven to be fiercely resilient in its 2,000 years of existence.
It will need all that staying power and then some to still be relevant for the next 2,000 years to come.
Or even 20 years at that.

Then there is this:

Communism is one of the greatest killers of all time yet 11% of Americans think that communism would better serve this country’s needs than our current system.




John J. Walters|Mar. 13, 2013 6:22 pm

According to a disturbingly pleasant graphic from Information is Beautiful entitled simply 20th Century Death, communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.
During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism’s total by only 9 million.
It gets worse when you look at the lower right of the chart—The Natural World—which includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world’s worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea. 
Communism is a killer. And yet some still say they support the idea: According to a 2011 Rasmussen poll, 11% of Americans think that communism would better serve this country’s needs than our current system.
Visualizing the major causes of death in the 20th Century.
Originally a 6m x 2m commission by the Wellcome Collection as a companion piece to the London exhibition: ‘Death: A Self-Portrait – The Richard Harris Collection’ (Nov 2012).
Some inevitable double-counting, broad estimations and ball-park figures.


Tuesday, March 12, 2013

With U.S. military forces preparing to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, the nation’s ongoing and high level illicit drug production remains a subject of debate in the world’s foreign policy and counterterrorism circles — since profits from the illicit drug trade have for years been known to finance international terrorism.


Afghanistan again tops list of illegal drug producers
Afghanistan remains by far the world’s top producer of illegal opium poppy used to make heroin, according to the State Department’s annual report on global trends in the illicit narcotics trade, which also pinpoints three countries — Bolivia, Burma and Venezuela — for having “failed demonstrably” to uphold international counternarcotics agreements.
The report, which the State Department quietly released and submitted to Congress last week, also highlights Nicaragua as a major drug transit country and claims that more than 80 percent of illegal cocaine entering the U.S. gets smuggled through the Central American corridor.
The 2013 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report also cites Mexico as a “center for money laundering” along with high ongoing rates of drug trafficking. But it also points to “signs of improvement” in the security situation in Mexico, where more than 50,000 people are estimated to have been killed in drug related violence since 2006.
Citing a “major Mexican newspaper,” the report maintains that “the annual number of organized crime-related homicides through November 2012 declined by an estimated 19 percent from 2011” in Mexico. The report adds, however, that the decline may only reflect a downturn in violence in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, since “shifting patterns of violence” led to higher homicide rates elsewhere in the nation.
Describing U.S.-Mexico counternarcotics cooperation as “unprecedented,” the report maintains that $1.1 billion in aid from Washington has “boosted Mexican efforts to bring to justice leaders of transnational criminal organizations.”
“That success, however, has also resulted in smaller, fractured organizations that have violently attempted to consolidate their power,” the report states.
On Afghanistan, meanwhile, the report says “smuggling of heroin into India from Afghanistan and Pakistan continued to increase in 2012” and that “drug-trafficking organizations in India use human couriers and commercial package services to send illicit drugs overseas, both to Europe and the Americas.”
With U.S. military forces preparing to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, the nation’s ongoing and high level illicit drug production remains a subject of debate in the world’s foreign policy and counterterrorism circles — since profits from the illicit drug trade have for years been known to finance international terrorism.

An introductory section of the report outlines how “nearly all” of Afghanistan’s opium cultivation is now occurring in the war-torn nation’s southern and western provinces. The report sites progress in the effort to beat back opium growth in Helmand Province — Afghanistan’s largest cultivation area — but states that overall poppy cultivation in across Afghanistan actually “increased by 57 percent” between 2011 and 2012.
The world’s next biggest opium cultivator is Myanmar. Claims by the Myanmar government that its officials have destroyed an increasing amount of opium crop “cannot be verified,” State Department officials said.
The report names Burma as one of the three nations to have “failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements.” But the U.S. posture toward Burma has softened dramatically during the past year, as the nation’s leaders have undertaken significant democratic reforms.  
The report calls for similar waivers to be granted to Venezuela and Bolivia on grounds that U.S. support for programs aiding the three nations are “vital to the national interests of the United States.”
The report cites a lack of counternarcotics coordination with Venezuelan authorities and states that “as in prior years, the United States remains prepared to deepen cooperation with Venezuela to help counter the increasing flow of cocaine and other illegal drugs transiting Venezuelan territory.”
“Venezuela remains a major transit country for cocaine shipments via aerial, terrestrial, and maritime routes,” the report states. “The vast majority of illicit narcotics that transited Venezuela during 2012 were destined for the Eastern Caribbean, Central America, the United States, West Africa and Europe.”
With regard to Bolivia, the report maintains that “most Bolivian cocaine flows to other Latin American countries, especially Brazil, for domestic consumption or onward transit to West Africa and Europe.”
“Approximately 1 percent of cocaine seized and tested in the United States originates in Bolivia,” the report states.



Monday, March 11, 2013

Do these politicians think they are cool, tough, have street cred or are they just suffering from an anti-social behavioral disorder, calling themselves a “gang?” A Gang of Eight. These are supposed to be legislating our laws and representing the voters of their states and refer to themselves in terms reserved for criminals.


Gang Of Eight Immigration Bill Being Crafted, But Senators Remain Quiet


By ERICA WERNER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The eight senators meet in private several times a week, alternating between Sen. John McCain's and Sen. Charles Schumer's offices. They sit in arm chairs arranged in a circle and sip water or soft drinks as they debate temporary workers and border security. In a capital riven by partisanship and gridlock, they are determined to be the exception and actually get something done.
This is immigration reform's "Gang of Eight." With them lies the best hope in years for overhauling the nation's byzantine immigration laws - and they know it. That's partly why they are, by all accounts, working amazingly well together as a self-imposed deadline approaches for their sweeping legislation to be released. The progress is happening even though the group includes some of the Senate's most outsized personalities, failed and prospective presidential candidates, one lawmaker dogged by scandal and another facing a potential re-election challenge that could be complicated by his stance on immigration.
"I tell you what, this is one of the best experiences I've had. Everybody's serious, everybody's knowledgeable, they've been around the issue," said Sen. Lindsey Graham-R-S.C., who's up for re-election next year and facing a potential GOP primary challenge from the right. He said it's "sort of what I came up here to do - sit down with serious people to solve serious and hard problems."
In addition to McCain, R-Ariz., Schumer, D-N.Y., and Graham, the gang includes Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a potential 2016 presidential candidate; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who's battling allegations related to prostitution and his ties to one of his donors.
They meet for an hour or an hour-and-a-half at a time on days when the Senate is in session. No reporters stake out these meetings and aides stand or sit in the background, behind their bosses. They're assiduous about avoiding leaks and tight-lipped on the details of how their talks are going.
"I'm guardedly optimistic," McCain almost invariably says when asked.
---------------------------------
What Is a Gang? Definitions
LOOKING FOR YOUR VOTE


There is no universally agreed-upon definition of "gang" in the United States. Gang, youth gang and street gang are terms widely and often interchangeably used in mainstream coverage. Reference to gangs often implies youth gangs. In some cases, youth gangs are distinguished from other types of gangs; how youth is defined may vary as well.
Motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, hate groups, adult organized crime groups, terrorist organizations and other types of security threat groups are frequently but not always treated separately from gangs in both practice and research.

Official definitions
Federal definition. The federal definition of gang as used by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is [1]:
  1. An association of three or more individuals;
  2. Whose members collectively identify themselves by adopting a group identity, which they use to create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation, frequently by employing one or more of the following: a common name, slogan, identifying sign, symbol, tattoo or other physical marking, style or color of clothing, hairstyle, hand sign or graffiti;
  3. Whose purpose in part is to engage in criminal activity and which uses violence or intimidation to further its criminal objectives.
  4. Whose members engage in criminal activity or acts of juvenile delinquency that if committed by an adult would be crimes with the intent to enhance or preserve the association's power, reputation or economic resources.
  5. The association may also possess some of the following characteristics:
    1. The members may employ rules for joining and operating within the association.
    2. The members may meet on a recurring basis.
    3. The association may provide physical protection of its members from others.
    4. The association may seek to exercise control over a particular geographic location or region, or it may simply defend its perceived interests against rivals.
    5. The association may have an identifiable structure.
Both the Department of Justice and ICE have distinct definitions for transnational organized crime and gangs. The federal definition of gangs excludes drug trafficking organizations, terrorist organizations, traditional organized crime groups, such as La Cosa Nostra, and groups that fall within the Department of Justice's definition of transnational organized crime.

Public schools are funded by taxes, which are extracted from parents and non-parents alike. Taxpayers have no choice in the matter—their money is taken by force and used for purposes they may or may not approve. For many parents, these taxes make private education for their children impossible. The absence of choice does not end there.



Abolish Public Schools

In recent years, it has become increasingly popular to argue that government should be operated more like a business. As an example, a manifesto written by sixteen public school executives explains how to fix public schools:
Let’s stop ignoring basic economic principles of supply and demand and focus on how we can establish a performance-driven culture in every American school—a culture that rewards excellence, elevates the status of teachers and is positioned to help as many students as possible beat the odds.
Recognizing “basic economic principles of supply and demand” is a good place to start. But what is the essence of supply and demand? And how does it apply to our schools?
Wikipedia describes supply and demand as an economic model of price determination in a market. It concludes that in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by consumers (at current price) will equal the quantity supplied by producers (at current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium of price and quantity.
How does this apply to schools? Let us first look at the nature of public schools.
Public schools are funded by taxes, which are extracted from parents and non-parents alike. Taxpayers have no choice in the matter—their money is taken by force and used for purposes they may or may not approve. For many parents, these taxes make private education for their children impossible. The absence of choice does not end there.
Parents who cannot afford private education or home schooling have little choice but to send their children to public schools. If they don’t, compulsory attendance laws could land them in jail. And, once their children are in school, they will be taught a curriculum chosen by politicians and educational bureaucrats, not the parents. For example, your children might be taught evolution, though you support creationism.
Every aspect of public education renders your judgment irrelevant. You are forced to pay for a service you may not want or need. You are forced to support the teaching of ideas with which you may or may not agree. If consumers and taxpayers have no choice, how can supply and demand apply to public schools? In short, it can’t. Public schools obtain both their funds and their customers by compulsion. They are divorced from market considerations, including supply and demand.
Public schools—and indeed, no government institution—can be operated like a business. The only way to improve our schools is to get government out of education. Our schools should not be run like a business, but as a business. Consider what this would mean:
  1. Non-parents would not be forced to pay for the education of children who are not their own. If they so desire, they are free to provide financial assistance to anyone they choose.
  2. Parents would not be forced to subject their children to ideas they find immoral. They would be free to select schools that teach the ideas and values they advocate.
  3. Educators would not be compelled to meet the demands of educational bureaucrats and politicians. They would be free to meet the demands of the market.
A free market in education would create an abundance of choices for parents and students. Educators would have to compete for business by offering the curriculums that parents want. Indeed, this was the case in colonial America:
Historical records, which are by no means complete, reveal that over one hundred and twenty-five private schoolmasters advertised their services in Philadelphia newspapers between 1740 and 1776. Instruction was offered in Latin, Greek, mathematics, surveying, navigation, accounting, bookkeeping, science, English, and contemporary foreign languages. Incompetent and inefficient teachers were soon eliminated, since they were not subsidized by the State or protected by a guild or union. Teachers who satisfied their customers by providing good services prospered. One schoolmaster, Andrew Porter, a mathematics teacher, had over one hundred students enrolled in 1776. The fees the students paid enabled him to provide for a family of seven.
A privatized educational system gives parents and students meaningful choices. And it respects the moral right of each individual to act on his own judgment.
For decades, politicians and educators have suggested an endless stream of “reforms.” Yet, the performance of our schools continues to decline. It is time to truly allow supply and demand into education. It is time to abolish public schools.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

The insanity in going to war with Iran - Thesis: Iran has several options--from the traditional to the unconventional--to respond to an American or Israeli air strike. Based on my analysis, I believe Iran easily has the capability to make war more costly in terms of American lives than either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.





The Costs of War with Iran: An Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

SMALL WARS JOURNAL 
Journal Article | August 31, 2012 - 4:30am

Abstract
This paper describes the possible Iranian responses to American or Israeli air strikes. Using the U.S. Army’s analytical tool, “Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield,” it will define the operational environment of a war with Iran, and describe Iran’s terrain broadly. The paper describes how Iran’s military has adopted asymmetric tactics to defeat conventionally superior enemies, like America. Using this background, I will lay out the “courses of action” available to Iran at sea, air, ground, in other countries and by conducting terrorism around the globe.
(Portions of this article appeared in individual posts on my website, On Violence, but have been significantly rewritten for this paper.)
Introduction
When it comes to war with Iran--whether a limited air strike or a full-on invasion--proponents for war tend to exaggerate the benefits (preventing a nuclear Armageddon for Israel) while obscuring the costs (the number of dead U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines). For example, Matthew Kroenig defended his Foreign Affairs article “Time to Attack Iran” by saying:
“As other readers of the article know, I fully engage with the many negative consequences of military action, including possible Iranian missile and terror attacks against U.S. bases, ships, and allies in the region.”
Or Charles Krauthammer describing the U.S. Navy breaking an Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormuz:
“We will succeed, but at considerable cost.”
I understand why pundits use ambiguous language like “negative consequences” or “considerable cost.” When proponents for war with Iran put numbers to their predictions, support for military action against Iran plummets. When asked “if attacking Iran started a war similar in length and costs to war in Iraq” only 37% of Americans still supported war, according to a Reason-Rupe poll.
But war with Iran might not even resemble another Iraq or Afghanistan; it could be worse. Iran could fire ballistic missiles at population centers, supply the Taliban with guided missiles, or fire anti-ship missiles at U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, most reporting on Iran revolves around whether Iran has nuclear weapons, not the costs of starting another war in the Middle East
With this paper, I hope to explain those costs. I will use my experience and training as a U.S. Army military intelligence officer to describe the options available to Iran. Specifically, I will answer the question, “What courses of action could Iran pursue immediately after an American or Israeli initiated air war?” To answer this question, I will use the traditional method of analysis of the U.S. Army, the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB).
First, a few caveats. This will not be a strictly doctrinal IPB. Such an IPB uses maps, rulers and weapon capability charts to define the exact capabilities of an opponent. Since I do not have an intelligence staff, and since readers don’t want to read a document several hundred pages long (the likely length of the CENTCOM IPB for this scenario), my IPB will only sketch out Iran’s broad capabilities and options. Further, an IPB is traditionally a tactical tool. My IPB will venture into Iran’s strategic and operational approaches, a topic much more relevant to the debate than Iran’s specific tactical plans.
Second, I believe America will avoid a ground invasion of Iran. Since America hasn’t made the logistical moves to support a ground invasion, to destroy Iran’s nuclear program America or Israel must launch a coordinated air and naval bombing campaign. As such, my IPB will focus on an Iranian response to that likely attack.           
Third, I will not predict how Iran will respond. They could use all of the options at their disposal. Or none of them. I will merely lay out their options and the possible costs. For papers predicting how Iran could respond, please see my bibliography at the end.         
Finally, I used no classified material while making this IPB. Because of this hindrance, some of my analysis will miss the mark simply because of Iranian or American deception, exaggeration or confusion.
Many military analysts and think tanks have described the general military options available to Iran in previous papers. However, I believe the Army’s method of intelligence analysis--summarized for this paper--will provide readers with a guide to an Iranian response to an American military attack. It will also give Americans an idea of the possible costs of starting yet another war in the Middle East.           
Thesis: Iran has several options--from the traditional to the unconventional--to respond to an American or Israeli air strike. Based on my analysis, I believe Iran easily has the capability to make war more costly in terms of American lives than either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.