I think you would be hard pushed to find anyone who is or has served in the military who does not, on occasion, feel a longing for isolationism.

__________________
We are United States Marines, and for two and a quarter centuries we have defined the standards of courage, esprit, and military prowess.
Gen. James L. Jones, USMC (CMC); 10 November 2000

"On my signal, unleash hell"

That is a nice idea. However, will Iran do that?

Don't forget, that is a nation that refers to the US as the "Great Satan". And has avowed to destroy it whenever possible.

And the US military is not as overdeployed as you may think. If you are talking about occupying another country, then you are right. But it is not overdeployed if the goal is simply to stage a series of air strikes, or to attempt to destabilize a nation. That requires much less resources, and almost no ground troops.

In fact, that can easily be done with what is already in theatre. Because the insurgents have no air power or air capability, the resources for that kind of conflict are mostly sitting around on bases, unused. Our Navy patrols the area, with cruise missiles on the launchers, with nothing to shoot at. Bombers and fighters just sit at the bases, mostly doing patroling to keep their skills sharp.

That is very true. I remember sitting on a tarmac in 1987, wondering why I was looking at C-130s that would take me to Haiti, and why I was going there? After all, what has Hati ever done to or for me?

Very few in the military actually want to go to war. People are killed and maimed in war. You go through harsh training, harsh environments, with lack of even simple things like bathing more then once a week.

But it is the job. We knew what we were signing up for (other then the exploiters that signed up in peace time solely for the benefits with no interest in actually doing anything for them). And we go to war, not for glory or to kill, but to support our buddies and our unit.

Isolation is a nice idea. But there are several problems in it if you look long term. Quite often, you end up in a bigger, nastier war then you would have if you intervened earlier. And it can be a catalyst for other nations to attack you or your assets, thinking that you are "weak" or "spineless".

We saw this in the 1970's after we left Vietnam and went isolationist. We saw it after the Civil War, after the Spanish-American War, and after WWI and WWII. After each of these conflicts, we went isolationist and swore that other nations would have to handle things for themselves. And each time, we still ended up fighting. But it just got worse.

I often times wish I was back home. Where the temperature was cooler (El Paso), where I did not have to walk 100 yards to get to the latrine, where I could sit back in the evening and have a beer, and could spend evenings with my wife, or call my family whenever I want. But I am on a mission, and that is currently my priority.

Because a lot of lives, not just mine, are depending on me.

I'm glad the reality of the Iran situation was not a foregone conclusion like the premise of this thread.

The fact we weathered the period from when the thread was started until now without attacking Iran, demonstrates that cooler heads prevailed.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

For one thing, there is attacking Iran, then there is Attacking Iran. And there is a big difference between the two.

I do not expect any kind of major attack against them. The country is having enough problems at the moment, that it may not even be nessicary. Dissident leaders are once again asking for protests to be staged around the end of Ramadan, and the Government there has already cancelled several events.

Myself, I am just going to continue to do my job. And that is watching across a few score of miles of water at Iran, to see if they decide to get screwy.