Brzezinski: War With Iran Could Last Years, Devastate Global Economy

[thesarge]

"Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warns Newsmax.TV that a confrontation with Iran would be disastrous for the United States, lasting for years and possibly devastating America's economy."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/brz...7/18/id/445804

[JasonC]

Years? The US took Iraq in 3 weeks, the remainder of the war was babysitting. Im not sure who has/had the more dominant military. If were talking invasion only, less then a month. However, I don't envision another ground war. Naval and Air yes, but not Army.

[TheKiwi]

What nations that right next door to Iran and having substantial US ground forces are there?

[JasonC]

What nations that right next door to Iran and having substantial US ground forces are there?

Read: Another.

[TheKiwi]

Sigh! I am not saying the US Army would bring the battle to Iran. I am saying that Iran is capable of bring the battle to A'stan and Iraq where there are already substantial US ground forces. It's not something that can be avoided.

[American Caesar]

Unfortunately Iran like A'stan is a lot of mountain not good tank country so a land invasion won't be easy.

[BlackFlag]

Years? The US took Iraq in 3 weeks, the remainder of the war was babysitting. Im not sure who has/had the more dominant military. If were talking invasion only, less then a month. However, I don't envision another ground war. Naval and Air yes, but not Army.

I think you're going to piss off a lot of current and former military personnel on this forum if you consider OIF a three week war followed, by eight years of "babysitting".

[G-AWZT]

Wow suddenly Zbig is afraid of dropping bombs. His record up to now has been bombs away.

[grindercore]

interesting, i just got his latest book "strategic vision" out of the library. never knew much about Brzezinski.

[Ambassador]

“High inflation. Instability. Insecurity. Probably significant isolation for the United States in the world scene,” Brzezinski said. “Can you name me any significant country that’s going to be in that war together on our side?"

Yeah that's actually an important matter to consider. After Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder how many US allies will agree to send troops to 'babysit' post-war Iran this time. We've all just began or finished withdrawing from there to refocus our priorities, and sending troops there for Iran again would defeat their purpose.

[beNder]

Years? The US took Iraq in 3 weeks, the remainder of the war was babysitting. Im not sure who has/had the more dominant military. If were talking invasion only, less then a month. However, I don't envision another ground war. Naval and Air yes, but not Army.

Babysitting? 4347 US military personnel dead since "Mission Accomplished" is babysitting... wow

[fiorellabel]

Babysitting comment are just ludicrous:just think about Afganistan, one of the most arretrate country in the world and how it foiled both word superpowers.

Iran has about 80 millions people, enormous territories, omogeneous core of population and a record of resisting assimilation.
I would also join my consuete consideration that they were a word (super)power when the ancestor of the comment poster were a germanic tribe living in huts in some part of the actual Poland.

[EITAN88]

Anyone who actually thinks there will be boots on the ground in Iran's case is deluding himself.... whether he's for or against military action.

[Ambassador]

To remove Iraqi WMDs, the Coalition put boots on the ground. To remove Iranian WMDs, they will not put boots on the ground. Why the difference?

Of course the large scale existence of either is still contentious, but let's try to hypothesize.

[EITAN88]

To remove Iraqi WMDs, the Coalition put boots on the ground. To remove Iranian WMDs, they will not put boots on the ground. Why the difference?

Iranian nuclear program =/= potential Iraqi WMD program... simple as apples and oranges my friend.