Only the Iranian people can stop the Iranian nuclear programme? I'm assuming that the good General means a presumed nuclear weapons programme rather than a nuclear programme with NPT signatory status and IAEA monitoring. But these days one never knows, given that every touted nuclear advance is spoken with 'weapon' in the same phrase. One can only assume that the conventional wisdom that Iranians generally don't want to shut down the nuclear programme is false. Or, probably more accurately, this is what the mini-shah and his lick-spittles are wont to whisper in Washington. I suspect they are rooting for Rick Sanctimonious, given his relationship with the Ledeen family. There is, though, a more sinister interpretation which is more in keeping with the Mattis persona. Remember Iraq, where it was argued that as Iraqis didn't try hard enough to oust Saddam that meant that they could be 'punished' through sanctions and the occasional volley of cruise missiles?

The Syrian air defence is probably still in a time warp of at least 25 years. What this particular General is probably saying is that it's a damn stupid waste of time to let the UK and France take the 'lead.' That was true for Libya too, of course. The UK and France still believe that they 'won' there without much support from Uncle Sam. Damn if I know why, but there it is.

A for Iraq, wasn't there a small boom a few days ago in Tel Afar? That signal Success Story of yesteryear?

What Gen. Dempsey testified could/should be the lede. As it was, the lede was calling Iran a "rational actor" and getting swatted at from the right. But put them together and you have this lede: JCS Chairman tempers calls for Iran, Syria intervention.

"A person who advocates peace, conciliation, or negotiation in preference to confrontation or armed conflict."

Thank God for the anti-Yes Man.

It seems to me doubtful that senior French and British military officers do not recognize the key facilitating role of U.S. forces. In particular British officers are on the record lamenting the degredation of their capabilities. DILNIR, I don't see why Americans feel the need to be constantly praised? We certainly don't feel compelled to at times even to recognize allies contributions let alone praise them?

on Capital Hill yesterday: basically, Syria’s radar and associated air defense systems are older (although capable) Russian and former Warsaw Pact vintage, that Israel hasn’t seen any problem with defeating by combat electronic techniques. Although Iran may have delivered something a bit more sophisticated since the IAF’s last combat penetration into Syria?

My opinion is that U.S. wouldn't have that much of a problem with defeating Syria’s anti-air threat, although it is manned by an actual trained army, as opposed to mostly mercenaries, with dubious technical training, as was the case in Libya. . .In essence, I guess saying Syria's air-defense is five times greater than Libya's is technically correct. . .But the statement is also open to interpretation.

Anyway, the good General may be running interference against those well known senators that never found an intervention they didn't like?

Of possible note, I did see a recent video in Arabic of a delivery of weapons and vehicles being flown into a Syrian airport I recognized as the one outside the town of Hamah. My recollection is that the Syrian army generally move their stuff via surface roads. . .one might wonder about Syrian military convoy security these days.

McCain to Mattis: Is al-Qaeda popping up in Iraq again? Mattis: Yes.

Volumes are unspoken in this brief exchange. Let's recall there was no al-Qaeda contact with Iraq when president Bush decided to invade that nation, although the president and his close bumblers repeatedly claimed otherwise. After the invasion & occupation, a Jordanian with keen publicity ambitions later announced the presence of a body named al-Qaeda in Iraq that greatly cheered the Bush clique and greatly astonished al-Qaeda itself.

This week, packing his bags to visit Syria on behalf of both the UN and the Arab League, diplomat Kofi Annan takes a moment to warn against any outside military help to Syria on the ground that this would make things worse. You only have to look, he says, nearby to see how much worse. Guess who's nearby to Syria. Yep. Iraq. But TYRTAIOS, toujours facile, suggests that another neighbor could consider military action -- admittedly, not help, exactly -- in Syria in good heart and with every hope for success. I remain with Annan.

PS I don't really believe general Mattis has been last optimistic before the senate. Less optimistic, yes.

So we just finished our capstone exercise here at Carlisle. Students played the roles from COCOM command and staff all the way up to CJCS and deputies to DoS, OSD, USAID, and National Security principals. The world was exploding with problems all over the place.

We tried to employ the national elements of power Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic (M)...but the scenario always pushed us back towards M. There's some definite negative training in that. No such thing as declaring peace and going home early. Oh well.

"On another note; what's with Dempsey and his holding up the nasty spectre of Syrian air defenses? First, the Israelis were able to neutralize a sector and get in and out. Second, how did he think we were going to penetrate the USSR? The "packages" we sent over Iraq is the same tactic we would use along with some new ones. Same for Iran. Does he think that we are only capable of attacking the Libyas of the world? Who briefs this guy and writes his stuff? However, I am not advocating either. Of course, a stray cruise missile or fifty for Syrian artillery and armor would not be such a bad idea."

Whoever prepares his testimony isn't very bright and General Dempsey mocks his office with such a statement. If it were a cake walk, we wouldn't be paying the flyboys the big bucks.

...a person can say, """It's not significant..."" and, ""It'll kill a lot of innocent people"" in reference to the same thing.

I suppose everybody concerned has "killed a lot of people" so far to no productive end, so a bunch more I suppose don't really change the fundamentals. But its still disillusioning.

I disagree with you. First, America's foreign policy or policies are so vague, I am not sure what they are. I agree with supporting Israel. I don't agree with sucking up to Iran and the muslim crazies who run the country..

"Is rio orange war always comparateur forfait bloque inevitable ?"
MaximB

I'm assuming that the good General means a presumed nuclear weapons programme rather than a nuclear programme with NPT signatory status and IAEA monitoring. But these days one never knows, given that every womenrainboots touted nuclear advance is spoken with 'weapon' in the same phrase. One can only assume that the conventional wisdom that Iranians generally don't want to shut down the nuclear programme is false. Or, probably more accurately, this is what the mini-shah and his lick-spittles are wont to whisper in Washington.