Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen:
“This notion of just going in with special forces and concentrated strikes is absolute idiocy.”

What is even more troubling about this is that the president has decided to use the Pentagon for these secret missions instead of the CIA - which shows that he is doing so to avoid having to report to Congress.

If the planning of our invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent planning for that ocupation are any indication, we should leave well enough alone.
We aren’t going to win an all out war with Iran by attrition.

Bush must understand that he buys any such power at the expense of trust and respect. If he cuts congress out of the process that could have serious repercussions for the Republican party’s power, because he’s basically cutting his own party out of the decision.

If we attack Iran, it’ll be the bloodiest thing since World War II, and I am not even close to kidding. Korea and Vietnam will look like police actions by comparison to what either (a) Iran will do to us if we go in halfheartedly or (b) we will do to Iran if we go in wholeheartedly.

There should be a clear distinction between a war and a police action in our military understanding. Our actions in Yugoslavia, despite all the bungling and politicization, ultimately worked because our limited mission was clear. Likewise, our conquest and rebuilding of Japan and Germany worked because we understand the totality of our mission.

If we fight a war with Iran, it had better be the latter, and only as response to massive (e.g. nuclear) aggression. Total war is something that people everywhere understand: we can win a war in Iran by bombing them back into the Sassanid Dynasty, and then occupy the country for decades after forcing every man, woman, and child to say “uncle” and eat from our hand.

I dearly hope we never have to fight that war!

Chops,
You may not realize this but Viet Nam and Korea were considered police actions.

It is not surprising to hear that the Bush White House is gearing up for a showdown with Iran. It is also questionable whether such a strategy is winnable…(let alone moral). The cost of the current debacle has been astronomical and has seen minimal success. It has drained American resources and credibilty in the middle east and cost Americans over a thousand lives with no end in sight.

What could they be thinking?

Do they actually think that America has the capacity to get into yet another drawn out conflict where insurgency is all but assured?

Who in God’s name voted for this guy?

WCMoore, those who chose to be hopeful rather than do their thinking, research, and rational homework before pulling the lever. That’s who. That includes both D’s and R’s. See the latest polls showing American’s hopeful about a 2nd Bush term.

Normally, I cant help but agree with the thoughts on this blog, but on this topic I think you miss a lot of important things, or dismiss them too readily.

None of what I am about to say should be read as an endorsement, however I think it should be carefully considered before reaching a final conclusion.

First, I think one should dispell any notion of “invasion” and the mass use of ground troops, for several reasons.
1. there are none readily available, the debacle in Iraq has seen to that.
2. terrain. It’s almost impossible for a ground war, without incredible numbers

So, that leaves us with the only real credible alternative, which you dismiss. Air Power. I’ll come back to this in a minute.

Next one shuold dispell the notion that the administration cares about terrorism. It clearly does not to the extent that it drives their decisions. Its drives their propaganda, which alows them to go after their real objectives. Mid East compliance and Oil. Especially in light of the growing pressure on demand from China, India and the possibility of an Euro replacing the Dollar for Oil.

now, to Air Power. While our ground force capability has been shown to be ineffective even against a small, poorly trained and armed insurgency in Iraq, our Air Power is something else altogether. Both manned and unmanned. The Iranian Military would be taken out very quickly.

Command and control, Air defenses, Runways, then military equipment and personnel and fixed installations. Days and weeks, not months and years.

From the little insight we do get into the administrations thinking on this issue, it appears that their theory is as follows.

Use Air Power overwhelmingly to destroy WMD fascilities, degrade Iranian military capability severely, take out the leadership where possible, and leave a power vacuum behind for reformist forces to fill, negating the need for occupation.

This may be more credible than the rational and theory for Iraq, It’s still not a good idea IMHO, but I think that is the plan. More weight can be given to this by 2 other factors.

1. The US not supporting the EU nations trying to negotiate with Iran, looks to me like the US is wanting this effort to fail.

2. Seymour Hersh’s latest revelations about incurrsions into Iran for targetting and location.

3. Axis of Evil rhetoric still haging out there

4. distraction from the Iraq failure, and worsening conditions after Jan 30th

5. More nationalism in time for the 06 mid terms.

6. distraction to force through SS privatization, ala the tax cuts and Iraq.

One must always consider that this administration is playing in a world that doesnt resemble the realities, and hence their decisions are most likely not going ot be realistic, plenty of evidence for this

Air power has many virtues Persistence is not one of them. Aircraft, whether jet, prop, fixed winged, or helicopter require huge amounts of fuel and maintenance to remain in the battle. They also are absolutely worthless in terms of face to face interactions with civilians, which in the end is what we’ll need to win.

Ground troops are the only reliable answer to the quandary of political control. Rumsfeld, as much as he like airpower, special forces, and small, mobile forces that are few and far between, cannot impose a stable police presence or security situation with those elements. People carp about seeming like occupiers, but once you get past the threshold of actually occupying a nation, it’s next to useless to pretend like you’re not running things, and in fact counterproductive to present the image of the absentee landlord. In for a penny, in for a pound. The key is to occupy openly, but make good things result so people prefer you to their neighbor’s rowdy behavior. By trying to decieve or bullshit people about being occupiers, you only reinforce your status, and add the air of sinister conspiracy to boot.

The problem in Iraq is that we won military objectives, but we have so far lost the decision that was really important- that of political cooperation from the people of Iraq. Going into Iran now would compound the mistake of Iraq, which in turn compounds Afghanistan’s problems

Stephen, I think you’re writing from a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of any military action we might undertake in Iran: Invasion and occupation is not in the cards.

Pounder is closer to being right. This will be an operation similar to Dester Fox which was totally successful in taking out all remaining Iraqi WMD programs in 1998. It would consist of airstrikes (hence the reconnaisance gathering Hersh talks about) and *maybe* Special Ops forces similar to the scud hunt operations in both Gulf Wars.

If Bush is smart, he’ll wait until the IAEA brings the matter to the UN Security Council.

BTW, we’d beat the pants off Iran if it ever came to an invasion, which it won’t. I think you’re overestimating Iran’s capabilities and underestimating the professionalism of our military leaders.

Everyone involved in this discussion appears to be ignoring the elephant in the room. Folks, American foreign affairs and international relations have DRAMATICALLY changed since Iraq.

If the U.S. intends to attack Iran, unless, the U.S. can without shadow of doubt, demonstrate to the rest of the world that Iran constitutes a severe and imminent threat to the international community, the U.S. will do for Islamic fundamentalism what the Japanese did for isolationist Americans in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I wrote an article some time ago about a possible Bush agenda for perpetual war. If this administration attacks Iran without first bringing 3/4 or more of the international community on board supporting the measure, Bush will put the U.S. on an irreversible road to decades of perpetual war.

Not ignored David, I just thought it was obvious. Maybe it’s not.

AP-
I know what the Bush Administration wants to happen, in terms of a Desert Fox-like strike. What I’m saying is that it’s very unlikely any such strike will remain unanswered. I’m saying it will escalate, and any attack will become an all out war.

If anything about the history of War has proven true, it’s that our opponents are not restricted to our preferred choices. War is a human enterprise, and that means you must expect the unexpected to occur, and often plan for it.

I don’t think Iran will be a cooperative target. I think they will resist and escalate the war if we fight it now. My guess is that they will push into Iraq or Afghanistan and force us to answer that threat, or perhaps launch one of their WMDs into the fray. They’ve seen and caused a substantial portion of our trouble in Iraq, and are undoubtedly thinking of employing such successful methods against us should we attack.

Stephen, additionally, a great number of Iranians are pro-western culture. Bomb their country, and we will lose a great deal of that pro-western sentiment.

I don’t know, Stephen. Iraq fought Iran to a standstill. Iran watched how we dismantled the Iraqi armed forces. We would end up with total air superiority and we have plenty of troops in Iraq and more available.

An Iranian attack on Afghanistan is highly unlikely because the country is important to Pakistan, as well as being garrisoned by NATO forces and under UN supervision.

I’m no expert, but Iran is pretty much surrounded by states that would be hostile to any cross border moves by large-scale Iranian military forces. Including Iraq and its citizens.

Then there’s the fact that an attacking force necessarily gives up its defensive positions. If it’s not superior in some way (qualitative, quantitative, surprise, or terrain), it’s vulnerable. Iran wouldn’t enjoy any of those advantages in a large-scale attack.

If a strike became necessary (and I believe it is, IF they are close to finishing a nuke), it’s pretty unlikely Iran would do any more than Saddam did to US forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after Desert Fox.

Not that it wouldn’t piss ‘em off. But I don’t think there’s any chance of Iran inflicting a catastrophic defeat on US forces in the region.

I would expect an upsurge in terrorist attacks in Iraq and in the US… How confident do you feel about Bush’s homeland security efforts?

David:
“I wrote an article some time ago about a possible Bush agenda for perpetual war.”

I think this is exactly why he would want to use the Pentagon rather than the CIA for these secret missions - because I don’t believe the majority in Congress would be pleased for this to happen. By not having to report to them, he can stir up another hornets nest, but they’ll have had no say in the matter.

“If this administration attacks Iran without first bringing 3/4 or more of the international community on board supporting the measure, Bush will put the U.S. on an irreversible road to decades of perpetual war. “

I think you’re right, but I don’t think they care.
Dubya and Neo-Con Co. have already demonstrated with Iraq that whether they get the support of the international community or not, when it comes to war, they’re going to do what they are determined to do, and in whatever way they want to do it. Nor do I think they care whether We the People, or People anywhere else in the World, begin to think of America as a Rogue Nation as a result.

I agree AP.
One thing people always fail to see are the military consequences of an attack. If we started hitting “nuke” or “wmd” sites in Iran and they retaliate by hitting Iraq, what happens?
Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies and the Iraqi people would then look to us for help. We would defend Iraq against an evil Iran and the situation in Iraq would maybe stabilize some. Probably faster than the cluster*&$% we have there now.
I’m not saying this will happen, it is but one possibility out there that I think many people fail to see.

David,
Maybe I have missed the comment that I thought you were always good for.

Who’s going to pay for this?

Perhaps Bush can get his corporate “donors” to foot the bill, and give the taxpayers a break.

In terms of manpower, we must deal with the fact that our soldiers in Iraq are committed to keeping order there, the best that they can, given the circumstances.

We must also deal with the fact that Iran may strike at Israel with conventional weapons or WMDs. That will complicate the equation, especially with resentment for Israel in the region. We cannot fight this war halfway and expect events not to go out of control.

We must take measures to deal with a possible counterattack, even if it never comes. Once we strike, it is their choice whether they fight back, not ours. We must either gain the capitulation of the Iranians, or effect the destruction of the regime, its temporary replacement by us, and the final turnover of power back to a pacified Iran.

Our mistake in Iraq has been to go through the motions on everything else but the invasion, creating PR developments without supporting substantive ones. We Invaded successfully, and destroyed Saddam’s regime, but we utterly failed to replace it’s control with ours, and subsequently could not help but fail in transfering power to the new Iraqi government.

The decision we have sought in Iraq has never been attained. We did not gain power, could not give it, and must now rely on the cooperation of a people to make our actions mean anything. It is not now our choice whether we succeed, but the Iraqi people’s choice. That is a strategical mistake of the first order.

The Administration has put us in a vulnerable, powerless position. They scoff at the idea that it’s bad that the twenty percent Sunni Minority may not choose to give legitimacy to the new government. Trouble is, that’s a greater minority there than blacks are here in America. Now imagine if every black person and the country and perhaps twenty-four million additional American citizens could not or would not vote, and that thousands of those people were willing to kill other Americans trying to vote. That is the extent of the problem of both the vote and the insurrection, in numerical terms. In effect those numbers aren’t a minor concern, but a civil war in the making.

Civil war means the nation becomes a failed state, and we get drawn into an intolerable dilemma, where we either cut our losses, or start building them up considerably.

The Administration has chosen military arrangements well suited to small wars and brushfire conflicts where no big decision is sought, but terribly suited to broader, more geographical aims. Manpower still wins occupations, because occupations deal on the scale of societies and populations, and technology has not produced a means by which populations can be pacified without a police presence and a standing army in place. Any other methods give opportunities to those in the resistance to these occupations to drive up the expense and trouble of maintaining our power and control. We must not be taken in by illusions of our own superiority. In the end, we can still bleed, and still screw up, and enemies can use that against us.

It’s unfortunate, but Bush looks to put us in that position again, only this time, it may be far worse because of our problems in Iraq.

I am not saying the worst case is bound to occur, but I am saying we should anticipate it in the way we approach military strategy and policy. If we want any kind of success out of a war against Iran, we should leave ourselves few pressure points for them to squeeze and bring us down to our knees. We should do this not only to ensure victory in such a conflict, but also to make sure others don’t get the idea that our forces, as well trained as they are, are not effective in combat. By engaging in foolish and/or badly planned wars, we embolden our enemies and waste our own resolve. When we fight, we must make our victories overwhelming, and our success in gaining the decisions unquestionable. Rogue nations and terrorist will be intimidated by strong, sure, devastating responses more than half-hearted, incompetent efforts, however earnestly they are fought.

Rocky:
“Who’s going to pay for this?”

Our children, or their children - they’re meant to pick up the tab for everything Dubya and Co. have been doing for the last and the next, four years.

Oh, but wait, maybe not…
As Pounder wrote:
“6. distraction to force through SS privatization”

Thats guaranteed to raise them a whole lot of Vegas-Style Greenbacks in short order - with the floor show to come sometime in the future - when many old folks become streetpeople or spare-changer’s in supermarket parking lots.

“Perhaps Bush can get his corporate “donors” to foot the bill, and give the taxpayers a break.”

Ah, but you know as well as I that this the very last thing Dubya would ever consider doing.

We must either gain the capitulation of the Iranians, or effect the destruction of the regime, its temporary replacement by us, and the final turnover of power back to a pacified Iran.

I just don’t think there are any realistic scenarios that would lead to that.

I’ll debate none of the right/wrong or what ifs of Iran, my comment on this would be;

Love or hate President Bush, the countrys in the mideast that hate him/us, Know he dosent back water, they may still hate him /us, but they fear and respect him for that. Libia is a good case in point.
I’m quite sure that the leader of Iran doesn’t want the free dental exam that saddam got from the US military.
If you lived in a neighborhood where someone threw trash in his neighbors yard, that guy told him to stop or he would smash his face, the guy kept up and now his nose looks like a corkscrew setting close to his left ear, how many of the other neighbors would want to throw trash in that guys yard?

AP-
If you were to say “simple” or “easy”, I’d agree with you.

Beagle,
So now are we to assume the role of the neighborhood bully?

“I’m quite sure that the leader of Iran doesn’t want the free dental exam that saddam got from the US military.”

You seem to make assumptions that things will go as planed.
That is, of course, if there is a plan.

Rocky,

I only gave my personal opinion of why Iran may not wish to play games with President Bush if it ever got to the point of stop or else, for that reason I don’t think it will get to that point.

Only my opinion of a very complex issue, one tiny fact that Iran will be considering.

Stephen said: The decision we have sought in Iraq has never been attained. We did not gain power, could not give it, and must now rely on the cooperation of a people to make our actions mean anything. It is not now our choice whether we succeed, but the Iraqi people’s choice. That is a strategical mistake of the first order.

That is one of the most concise and insightful summations of our experience in Iraq that I have yet to hear or read, anywhere. Extremely well put, Stephen.

Stephen, I agree with your assesment of a possible fallout of desert fox like strikes and a widening of the theater by Iran, however where i think we disagree is how the administration views this.

I am not convinced as others have stated that incursions into Iraq is something the Iranians would want to do. They would not only be fighting through an opposed populace, they are trying to court, but would also be wide open to strikes by the US before they could mount an offensive.

I see little ot be gained by going into Afghanistan. Our forces there are few, and there are no tactical or strategic advantages to holding that country.

If we go back to 1991, where we brutalized the worlds 4th largest military in weeks with air power, and then we suggested that the shia rise up and over throw the saddam regime, which they did try to do, only we didnt back them up and some level of genocide took place.

I believe that this is the model the Administration intends for Iran, only this time, backing up the reformists when they revolt as we create the power vacuum via air power.

Iran is a far more homogenized society than Iraq, with far less tribal and religious tensions, the the neighbors are more complaint (since we occupy them) than turkey was, or Pakistan appears to be.

It simply has to be mouth watering to the Neo Cons looking at this picture.

the points others and yourself raise about logistics (fuel and bomb supply) and financing the effort are good ones, but ones I think we can overcome, at least the logistics, now we control the gulf and Iraq especially.

Financing the air war would be cheaper than a ground war for certain, and no one ever said we were dealing with financially responsible people to begin with.

I think the only thing missing fomr this neocon wet dream right now is some political domestic cover to do it. We have seen how easy that has been to manufacture in the past, with a complaint media (greased with payola) and an ill informed public.

Rocky, amazing isn’t it, that Bush can deficit spend until the cows come home for elective wars and pork barrel spending for local YMCA’s and statues, but, can’t seem to find any money for Social Security when it needs a shot in the arm almost 40 years from now?

Priorities. Bush has them, they are just all the wrong ones for working Americans and their present and future.

Adrienne, we agree entirely. I would like to see someone follow through on the money connection regarding the Bush/Cheney families and the oil and gas being consumed by our efforts in Iraq. I suspect the windfall for them and their supporters would be an eye opener.

American GI’s lives and limbs for oil profits here at home. Some set of priorities for self proclaimed Christian, wouldn’t you say?

Pounder-
I agree that incursions could become problematic, but here’s the thing: we aren’t necessarily in any position to repel the attack, and the Iraqis sure as hell couldn’t. The thought that’s just occured to me is that certain tribes might take sides with Iran, certain ones might do so with us. I think the Iranians, who have no problem with occupying Iraqi territory might have an easier time taking and holding territory.

We might do well to feel out which leaders might go in which direction. Regardless, it will be one hell of a mess to deal with, and if we don’t put the Iranians back on their heels at once, it will be the mess we’ll have to deal with.

As for Afghanistan- well it’s just a thought. But you know they might see fit to put some provocateurs in theatre there.

In Iran, the real question is how willing would any such people be willing to be seen as collaborators with us. If they gain power by our hand, it may be worse than if they gained the power by their own means.

As for logistics, well we don’t control the gulf. Other nations, that are uncooperative in this venture do. Iraq, well, we never controlled it entirely, so for the time being, it’s an undependable beachhead.

An air war, however cheaper, would not be able to handle a ground counterattack. That’s what lost us Vietnam. The North Vietnamese could always match an escalation of the air war with an escalation of ground troops. Given the tactics of the Iran-Iraq war, this is a distinct possibility. If that’s what happens, we won’t have a choice about committing more ground troops, and it will be a hell of a thing if we have to committ numbers we don’t have trained equipped and available.

I think we broadly agree that going forward with an offensive against Iran right now is a mistake, and what could or might happen is speculative, but no doubt difficult to predict.

I think your analagy to Vietnam is off a little however. Vietnam was a civil war, what we would be getting into in Iran isnt, hence we wouldnt be seeing Iranians against Iranians, not in that sense anyhow.

How would Iraq splinter ? During the Iran Iraq war, the Kurds openly supported the Iranians, which led to their gassing. The shiite and sunnis of course resisted the iranians. I am not familiar with all the politics of this, so i am going to refrain from commenting too much.

I doubt, with autonomy so close, the Kurds owuld once again back Iran, but more likely sit on the sidelines.

how the sunni’s would operate is an open question. they have little kindred to the Iranians, but fighting the shiite would be a plus for them.

Bottom line, I dont see the Iranians getting much in the way of conventional war equipment over the border without being taken out. I suspect it would more likely take the form of insurgency, a little like the VC did in the south.

Who knows, its complex and not wholly predictable, but i am not going to discount easily the notion that this adminstration is considering it, with ther usual rose tinted glasses on.

Stephen,
The problem in Viet Nam was without stripping the country of vegetation (not that we didn’t try), we could have laid a carpet of bombs from one end of the country to the other because there were too many places to hide.
Iran is the enigma of the Middle east. One minute they seem to be making overtures, the next they want to make nuclear weapons.
We have made a grave mistake in Iraq. One that will take probably decades to extricate ourselves from.

I brought Vietnam up to make a point: air superiority does not guarantee ground superiority. Cities can replace jungles, as can mountains to some extent. It’s a matter of what the terrain hides and reveals. Perhaps they’ll use the cities as cover for their military machinery. We aren’t bound to lose, but I’m certain the enemies going to look for ways to make this painful; we must be prepared for that. We go in thinking it’s going to be easy, we will suffer worse for it. It’s better to plan for the worst and never have it come to pass than to fail to plan for it and be caught off guard by something absolutely stupid.

I think the key to Iran is to understand that is in part run by fairly modern, somewhat secular folks, and in part run by fairly old-fashioned, theocratic Mullahs. That is the tension of their government. If we can make it break modern, get them to ditch the religious culture, it may be both a turning point for the Middle East, and a break of things in our favor, without those all those pesky Arab and Muslim deaths that seem to get people in that area so up in arms over, for some strange reason.