What War with Iran Might Look Like

President Obama and the Republican candidates who want to replace him talk a lot about how bad it would be if Iran got a nuclear weapon, and about how no options are off the table.  That last part is code for "we might bomb and invade your country, occupy it with our military, and install a friendly government, like we did in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan."  The reason they say it in code is that they don't want you to think about what a war with Iran might look like.  Well, I've thought about it, and I'd like you to consider some of the possibilities.


First, some facts.  Iran's armed forces, called the most powerful in the Middle East by General John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, has launched no wars of choice in modern history, and its leadership adheres to a doctrine of "no first strike".   We outspend them almost 100-to-1, but we outspend everybody, and we're currently using that whole budget on other things, like stationing troops in Austrailia.  And since Iran has over 500,000 well-equiped troops, it would take a lot more U.S. troops to invade Iran than it took to invade battle-weary Iraq (peak = 157,800 U.S. troops in 2008).  Imagine the size and terrain of Alaska, and that's about the size and terrain of Iran.  It goes without saying that nobody in Iran would welcome U.S. troops as liberators, and resistance to an invasion would be widespread and vigorous even beyond the country's military.


Second, some assumptions.  I'm assuming a scenario where the U.S. invades Iran in a manner roughly similar to how it went in Iraq.  This seems a middle-of-the-road scenario falling between what we're doing now (sanctions, surveillance, and assassination), and nuking them back to the stone age.  Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has publicly recommended bombing Iran.


What's the worst that could happen if we attack Iran?

• War with Iran could bankrupt the United States.  Some argue we're already bankrupt, and with our national debt now greater than 100% of our GDP (a higher ratio of debt-to-GDP than Ireland or Portugal), they have a point.  The exact cost of the Iraq war is unknown, but estimates range between $1 trillion and $4 trillion dollars.  So if we use $2 trillion as an optimistic estimate for the cost to invade Iran, can the U.S. afford this?  Will we default on our debt, or merely inflate the U.S. dollar so that we can pay it off?  Hyperinflation anyone?
• We could reinstate the draft.  One reason the American public so blithely supports our Endless War State is that soldiering is seen as just another profession, a good opportunity for some young people.  But if kids with plenty of better things to do with their lives than shoot at foreigners and get their legs blown off start getting drafted, we could find ourselves in an ugly situation.  But once we start the invasion, a draft may be inevitable, since our culture forbids retreat.
• We could start World War III.  Would China, Russia, Syria, and the other Arab states sit idly by while the U.S. took over another country in the region?  Would somebody attack Israel in retaliation?  Given the state of tension in international relations generally, none of this seems "off the table".

I don't know if any of these things will actually happen, but neither do the pundits, generals, or politicians who say we must move against Iran.  They seem a little too willing to risk what seem like some pretty dire consequences, and for what?  To prevent another sovereign nation from getting a weapon that the U.S. has thousands of?  And seeing that the U.S. is the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon, who should the world be more worried about?


Our leaders live in a world that makes them think things like war with Iran might be a good idea.  You need to help bring them back down to earth.  The risks are just too great.  Tell Obama to stop antagonizing Iran and back off.  Contact your congressional representatives and tell them to rein in Mr. Peace Prize.  This might not do any good, but it's necessary that you express your views so they can't claim legitimacy.  And for best results, vote for the only Presidential candidate who explicitly advocates reducing our militarism and entering a foreign policy of Mutually Assured Respect.

The Meaning of the End of the Iraq War

President Obama has announced that the Iraq war is over in multiple speeches, but what does that really mean?  First, a few things that this occasion is NOT.

This is not an Obama accomplishment.  Candidate Obama said repeatedly in 2008 "I will immediately begin to remove our troops...we can remove all of them in 16 months."  So if he had kept this campaign promise, the war would have ended in May 2010, not December 2011.  More important than the pace of withdrawal, however, is the seldom noted fact that the reason troops are withdrawing is because the sovereign government of Iraq has demanded that we withdraw.  The agreement between our nations that dictates withdrawal of our combat troops by the end of this year was signed by President Bush.  Obama has worked hard to try to extend U.S. troop presence beyond the Bush agreement.  The only reason this effort failed is that the Iraqi government refused to indemnify U.S. troops against prosecution for war crimes, such as unauthorized murder of non-combatants.
 
This is not an end to hostilities.  The withdrawal of U.S. "combat troops" is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, since a substantial U.S. presence will remain in Iraq into 2012 and beyond.  Our embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, a $750 million complex the size of Vatican City.  The staff of this embassy has at least 5,000 mercenaries to guard them.  Do you think the people who have been battling our "combat troops" will see any distinction between them and our "security personnel"?  Those who feel upset that we invaded and occupied their country for 9 years will not rest until the U.S. presence in Iraq is completely obliterated.  Do you remember the crisis that ensued when militants in Iran took our embassy personnel hostage?  While that exact scenario can't happen while the State Department has such a large ground and air force, don't you think we're asking for trouble by staying there?  The need to protect our personnel means things like middle-of-the-night house raids will continue.  Do you think the teenager who witnesses his brother or father being taken away in such a raid will care whether the armed thugs conducting the raid report to the State Department rather than the Defense Department when he decides whether or not to become a terrorist?  If we really withdrew from the country, such a scenario could not happen.

The saddest part of this war ending is that mainstream news outlets feel compelled to "balance" their coverage of the war by describing both the good and the bad things that came from it.  This bogus "objectivity bias" prevents journalists from making overt value judgements, even though war is unequivocally bad by any rational moral standard.  The fact is that bias and judgement are unavoidable anytime a person opens his or her mouth or takes pen to paper.  Better to state your biases up front, rather than pretend you don't have any.  The Iraq war in particular was a miserable failure on any axis you'd care to measure: strategic, economic, political, moral and security.  If we had not attacked, would Sadaam have killed more of his own citizens than we did?  Iraq Body Count reports over 100,000 civilians were killed as a result of the U.S. invasion.  If we had pursued non-violent means for overthrowing Hussein, could we have brought about the Arab Spring years earlier?

The notion that doing evil things (like invading and occupying countries that have not attacked anyone) is OK when the United States does them is called "American Exceptionalism".  It is a dangerous attitude which often results in the citizens of this great country tolerating actions from our government that history will judge as symbols of American arrogance, recklessness, and stupidity.  That's not the kind of exceptionalism I'd like our nation to have.  At the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi leaders were tried for their crimes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, said "Our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war".  I don't see why this principle doesn't still apply.  Iraq did not attack us (or threaten to attack us), they had nothing to do with 9/11, and they didn't harbor terrorists.  This means the invasion was an unnecessary, aggressive war. 

An unnecessary war, with its colossal cost in blood, treasure, and reputation, is not a cause for celebration, even when it ends.  The Iraq war is a terrible stain upon the American conscience, a blunder in all respects, and an act of embarrassing hubris from our leaders.  The only proper observance of the end of this chapter in U.S. imperialism is to apologize, withdraw completely from the sovereign country of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East), take care of the veterans who lost their limbs and minds over there, and begin the grieving process. 

How to Win at Words with Friends

I play a lot of different opponents on Words with Friends and only two or three of them are equal or better than me.  Like most people, I prefer playing evenly matched competitions.  I can't really bear to re-match people who can't score at least 200 points on me, and I can't imagine it's fun for them to repeatedly lose by 100 or 200 points either.

I thought it might be fun and help people if I gave a few tips to help them score better.  There really are just a few rules of thumb that can make you score much, much higher.  You don't need a huge vocabulary, though of course that helps.

I don't advocate obstructionist playing.  I don't think you'd win much more often, and stuck boards are no fun to play on.  Given two similar-scoring words, I always play the move that's best for opening up the board.  Of course a super scoring word is worth blocking further development, but I try to avoid this.  Only with some of my more competitive matches will I try to avoid setting up my opponent for an easy triple word score.

If you follow only the Basic Tips, you'll start scoring much better and having more fun.  If you follow all of the strategies and actively develop your vocabulary, you'll start averaging 15-20 points or more per turn, and start playing 50, 60, and 70 point words with some regularity.

Andy's Tips for Winning at Words with Friends:

Basic Tips:

1.  Always try to make as many words per turn as possible.  This is the most important and least practiced strategy.  You can only lay tiles in one direction, but you can make words in the perpendicular direction by laying your tiles next to previously played tiles.  Any tiles you lay that appear in two words are counted twice, including any letter bonus.  (Tiles that were already on the board before you played are only counted once, and you don't get the letter bonus they may have carried when they were originally played).  Try to extend high-value existing words while playing your word in the perpendicular direction.  Actively seek out overlaps you can use to make three or four words per turn.
2. An 'S' is a very valuable tile to have, because you can use the above principle to pluralize a high-value word that's already on the board, in addition to whatever word(s) you can make with your other tiles that you lay with the 'S'.  Try to hold on to the 'S' until you can use it in this way.
3.  Unless the game's almost over, hold on to your high-value tiles (8 or above) until you can at least double or triple them.  For higher multipliers, see tip 7.
4.  I try to use everyday words when I play, because it's more enjoyable for me.  However, there are some special words that are so valuable in making those ridiculous 50-100 point words, it's crazy to not memorize them and use them.  And who enjoys being stuck with a 'Q' and no 'U'?  So if you use any special words at all, these are my suggested top seven to remember: Jo, Ka, Xi, Xu, Qi, Qat, and Za.  These can all be pluralized with an 'S'.

Advanced Tips:

5.  If you have a really crappy rack full of 1-point vowels, exchange most or all of them.  If you don't get high-value tiles, you generally can't win.  Getting zero for one turn is better than getting 5 points for four turns in a row.
6.  The Greek alphabet provides some gems that I sometimes use to make a great multi-word play.  For example: mu, nu, pi.  Click here for the whole list.  Just memorizing the ones with two- and three-letter names is sufficient.
7.  For ridiculous scoring words, you need to understand and exploit the compounding multiplier effect of the bonus squares.  Letter multiples (if any) are applied before the word multiplier (if any) is applied.  So a tile played on a triple letter square that's also in a word that's tripled is multiplied by 9.  Obviously, playing a higher-value tile on one of these squares can add up pretty quickly.  Even a four-point tile that's tripled twice adds 36 points to your word score.  There are also ample opportunities to multiply higher value tiles by 4, by playing them on a double letter square in a double word play.  These can result in pretty decent scores.  Also remember that if you can cover two double word bonus squares in a single play, your whole word will get multiplied by 4.  I generally plan most of my plays around some sort of combination of bonus squares.
8.  Note that if you use all seven tiles in a single play, you get a large bonus.  They don't say what it is, but I think it's 35 points.  This is fun, but it's hard.  The worst is when I can form a seven-letter word from my rack, but can't find a way to attach it to the board!
9.  Keep an eye on your vowel-consonant mix.  You'll be able to play longer words if you have roughly equal numbers of each.  So if you have too many of one type, play as many of them as you can on a turn.  It's worth it to accept a lower-scoring word if it helps you even out your vowel-consonant mix for the next turn.
10.  There's no penalty for trying out words that turn to be not acceptable words.  If you are unable to find a good play with words you know, you can try out a series of words that seem to generally follow the rules of English spelling.  You may be surprised what crazy sequences are accepted.


That's it!

It's Time to Decamp

The physical encampments of the Occupy Movement are going away.  City by city, for various just and unjust reasons, encampments are being dismantled.  Occupy Boston seeks to delay its eviction by proactively seeking a court injunction, but this activity is just sucking energy from the community that could be spent accomplishing our long-range goals.  The authorities will win, and most encampments will not survive the winter.  We can fight this losing battle all the way down to the bottom, whining about our first amendment rights until nobody is listening to us anymore.

Alternatively, we can accept the inevitable, and transform the movement into something more effective.  It was never really about the occupations.  Occupation is a tactic, a means to an end.  It turned out to be effective beyond our wildest dreams, changing the national conversation in a matter of months.  Now that we have everyone's attention, is occupation still a useful tactic, or should we pivot to something else?  Obviously I think occupation has outlived its usefulness and has become a distraction and a burden to the movement.  Now is the time to turn the corner, and choose new tactics.  Let's not fade away, let's transform.

The mainstream media will lose interest soon if we don't give them something new.  Pulling a "mic check" on a public figure's speech is an example of a brilliant new tactic that relies not at all on having a 24/7 public encampment nearby.  However, simply reproducing successful mic checks ad nauseum will not win the war either.  I believe the spirit of "Occupy Everywhere" will be composed of dozens of new tactics of this type, and many more we can't imagine.  And if the Occupy Movement continues to evolve, it will confound our enemies, giving them nothing solid to strike at.

For these reasons, I think the long-range strategic thinkers in the movement must come out actively in favor of decamping, rather than letting things devolve.  Acting in concert to change our tactics would be a show of strength, while letting encampments be evicted one-by-one will be seized upon by our enemies as a sign of weakness and failure.  We are living in dangerous times, and our survival is not guaranteed.  To maximize our chances of survival, we should constantly re-evaluate our tactics and encourage the movement to follow those that are most effective.  If we survive, we will win. To survive, we must adapt.  They say humans are good at adapting.  Let's prove it.