Andrew Sttaford at
National Review Online quotes some "straight talking from Anne Applebaum" concerning the possiblilty of military action against Iran. It reperesents a fairly good summary of the "we can't hit Iran and do any good" school of thought, so it deserves some serious attention.
Here's most of the article, along with my comments:
Fact Number One:Iran is a large country containing 75 million people, in possession of a large and competent army.
The idea that Iran possesses a comptent army, born of communist/fascist-like images of troops goose-stepping before the Mullahs and Monkey Man in Tehran does not equal a competent miitary. Four well-placed, well-guided Mark-84s, followed up by a few CBUs to catch the stragglers, would take care of the complete parade. The ability to look good on parade does not equal military competence, at least against the US and UK. Besides, taking out large, competent armies is an American specialty.
We don't have the men, we don't have the machines and we don't have the money to stage an invasion.
Who, I might ask, has expressed any inclination to invade Iran on the ground? Where does this (prevalent) idea come from? Certainly not from competent military sources, who know what has to be done and how to do it. The mere question proves ignorance of how the military works and of the capabilities of air and space power.
If we were even to contemplate such a thing, we would have to reduce force levels
elsewhere, but where? In Iraq, the policy is to send more troops, the war in Afghanistan isn't going away anytime soon,
Of course we would have to move troops from somewhere else; one of the reasons we will not seriously contemplate putting "boots on the ground" in country. American ground forces in Iraq present a much more credible threat as a coercive presence -- implying that we can invade if the need arises. Implied pain is often a much more powerful convincer than actual pain. Military action against Iran will come from the air (and from sea-based air, of course).
...and, just as diplomacy there is starting to produce results, this isn't a great time to start monkeying about with the military balance on the Korean peninsula either...
No...a different situation presents itself there, because the DPRK possesses the ability to reduce Seoul to rubble -- causing millions of casualties -- even if we do succesfully take down their atomic infrastucture and national leaderhship from the air. The tens of thousands of gun tubes sitting in caves, pointed south, already have their orders. We can't act from the air there without incurring horrendous friendly civilian death and chaos. Iran presents no such difficulties -- its atomic capabilities are more dipersed, but still accessable, and its leadership/command-control infrastructure is just as contralized. AND...a vital difference...Iran does not present a credible conventional threat to us, in Iraq or elsewhere, and they know it.
This is one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, and he is already fighting an unpopular war.
Who better to launch further miltary action? His popularity has already tubed. What are the Demos and the people going to do -- vote him out of office? The Senate cannot vote to impeach, because it only takes 41 senators to fillibuster and, last I looked, the Repubs had 49 (and possibly Lieberman). It wouldn't be popular, but it would be effective and his actions might go down in history as equivalent to Truman's policy of containment, roundly criticized from both sides of the aisle back then. It may also contribute to a postive legacy and make his successor's job, Demo or Repub, easier.
More to the point, his credibility on intelligence matters was damaged - perhaps the better word is "eviscerated" - by the Iraq intelligence debacle, so no one is likely to believe his claims about Iranian nuclear prowess or Iranian anything, whatever the evidence.
Yes...it shows the danger of believing what the opinion of the beaurocratically mired, consensus-oreinted, and politically hostile intelligence "community" thinks about threats. Much of the information on Iran's atomic and missile threats come from what the Russians used to call "national technical means" -- factual inteligence that is subject to very little analytical interference. Much more credible stuff.
More to the point, Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which had been under UN surveillance for a decade. It is a sovereign state which has relatively normal relations with America's allies, not to mention China and Russia.
America, with respect to this war and future military action anyway, has no real allies save within the Anglosphere, and even if it did, China and Russia would certaily not be among them (even though Russia is fighting much the same fight we are.
If we were even to contemplate such a thing, we would have to reduce force levels elsewhere, but where? In Iraq, the policy is to send more troops, the war in Afghanistan isn't going away anytime soon, and, just as diplomacy there is starting to produce results, this isn't a great time to start monkeying about with the military balance on the Korean peninsula either.
Again, no one in his or her right mind is considering a ground campaign in Iran. It's a huge country with naturally defensable approaches to its interior cities. Its population would probably be less hospitable to our invasion than Iraq's was. It might wind up a lot like Spain did to Napoleon, even through his troops were vastly superior in quality for most of that campaign. Our commanders know this.
Fact Number Two: even if we were to contemplate a more limited military strike - the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, for example - there are some pretty serious obstacles to overcome. The most serious is the fact that we don't know where all Iran's nuclear facilities are located, which is not a minor problem if we are contemplating their destruction. Even if we could hit a few of them, which we probably could, that would merely delay Iran's nuclear programme by a few years.
You underestimate the
airpower of the dark side. Were not talking about a few cruise missiles thrown casually at empty training camps, as the Clinton Administration did. We're talking a full-blown campaign to destroy fixed infrastructure, command/control mechanisms and missile facilities (along with, most likely, attempted regime decaptation and suppression of Iran's air defense system). President Bush is making the case for regime take-down by connecting the al-Quds brigade's cadres in Iraq directly to its national government -- Achdumminimonkey and Mullah al-Shaitan are valid and legal miltary targets only if they are directly tied to command of military operations. Further, it won't matter if we don't get everything in Iran's atomic program. Setting them back ten years is a still a laudible goal. Ask the Israelis about bombing the Osirak atomic complex in 1981 about the validity of such a "limited" objetive.
What's more, we will have demonstrated that we have the capability to do this, which will create significant coercive power -- over Iran and other nations -- and our capability will only be better in ten years. An atomic bomb program is a big industrial enterprise and is much harder to hide and harden than chemical and, especially, biological capabilities are. This will not change with time. Even if Iran locates its atomic infrastructure below ground, we have a) weapons capable of reaching them, and b) can seal them underground for a long time (we're pretty good at finding air vents, for example).
Such a limited result hardly justifies either the political fallout or the (literal) environmental fallout which would follow. Even the Israelis, who do indeed believe that Iran's nuclear programme is designed to create the bomb that could destroy their country, appear unconvinced, at least for the moment, that selective bombing can succeed.
Bullshit. Much of the immediate political fallout will sound negative, but the real impact will be for governments around the world -- even our "friends" -- to rock back on their heels and say, "holy f&*K. The US can do this and they're serious." This will yield considerable coercive power and that is ultimately more important than popular opinion, despite what the chattering class thinks of the matter. Also, a campaign conducted from the air would take down much more than just the atomic program's indutrial infrastructure: air defense systems, Revoltionary Guards command/contol (C2) systems, central government C2 systems, making Tehran dark without killing anybody (an old Star Trek tactic) just to show that we can, and, if the right opportunity presents itself, perhaps taking down the regime's leaders as well.
Fact Number Three: neither at home, nor internationally, does the Bush Administration have a shred of support for military action of any kind.
And this is relevant because......?
This is one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, and he is already fighting an unpopular war. More to the point, his credibility on intelligence matters was damaged - perhaps the better word is "eviscerated" - by the Iraq intelligence debacle, so no one is likely to believe his claims about Iranian nuclear prowess or Iranian anything, whatever the evidence. More to the point, Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which had been under UN surveillance for a decade. It is a sovereign state which has relatively normal relations with America's allies, not to mention China and Russia.
To quote one the great generals of the 20th century, Vo Nugyen Giap, "that fact, while true, is also irrelevant." The fact that Bush is in negative popularity numbers and is still digging gives him an advantage a first-term Repub or any Demo won't have: leeway -- the weather guage. Who cares? He's a fascist, jack-booted imperialist, evil, evil, evil cow-monkey (did I mention evil) to the netroots crowd already. Military action now may give moderates the same opinion, but who cares if action now makes the next president's job much easier?
Further, the UN's opinion? No longer relevant or credible. Thanks, Kofi!
Fact Number Four: contrary to some other British press reports, America is "talking" to Iran, or at any rate using diplomacy to deal with what is a nasty regime. In fact, the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has pretty much staked her reputation on her belief that diplomacy, in co-operation with Germany, France and Britain, will produce results in Iran, just as it now appears to have done in North Korea. So far, it is true, these results - a weak UN Security Council resolution and some huffing and puffing - are thin.
I hope Condi Rice understands that negotiation and treaties can at best delay the use of force when that becomes inevitable. In the worst cases, it becomes a vehicle that a weaker power can use to strengthen itself while hamstringing a superior power. The Washington Treaties between World War I and II come to mind, as does SALT I. Diplomacy never works unless it involves a power with demonstrated unlimited power over a defeated adversary using it to hold knife to the defeated enemy' throat while going to concentrate on something else. (Most of Napoleon's diplomacy comes to mind.)
Nevertheless, President Bush on Monday night repeated his preference for diplomacy, calling the Iranians a "good, honest, decent people" with a "government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening". America's, objective, he went on to explain, "is to keep the pressure so rational folks will show up and say it's not worth the isolation". For those who need a translation from Texan dialect, that means: "We really do hope they'll remove Ahmedinijad as rapidly as possible."
Standard presidential boiler plate. Maybe ahmedinisimian will be overthrown by his people. Maybe pigs will learn to fly while it begins raining beer. He has to throw around this kind of bullshit.
Of course it is true that American rhetoric about Iran has lately taken on a harsher tone, and that America is using some of what one Middle East expert, Tamara Wittes, calls "coercive diplomacy".
The administration has started to apply selective sanctions - restricting Iran's access to hard currency, for example - and has pointed out, rather late in the game, the fact of Iranian support for Iraqi militias and terrorists. They've sent a few ships in Iran's direction, and have also tried to get other Arab states to push back against Iranian intervention in Iraq as well as Lebanon.
There is some evidence that this sort of thing is working. It does indeed seem as if the good, honest, decent people of Iran are getting sick of their loud and noisy leaders, at least if election results can be believed.
Last weekend, Iran's nuclear negotiator also sounded more conciliatory when he offered to re-open the stalled Iranian-European negotiations. Iran's president has also gone out of his way to say that his country poses "no threat to Israel", despite earlier promises to "wipe Israel off the map".
Whatever. An aggressive will always tell a weak-willed adversary what it wants to hear.
But it is also true that at least one of Iran's tactics is also working. For some time now, the Iranians have been trying to play America off against Europe, so as to relieve the pressure on themselves. After all, if there aren't joint American-European sanctions, then the Iranians will find it that much easier to ignore them. Thus do the "war in Iran" headlines - guaranteed to stir up fear and loathing of the American government - feed right into Iranian interests.
Which matters: for we are at an unusual juncture in history. If Britain, France and Germany go along with America's "coercive diplomacy", that diplomacy might stand a slim chance of success. If they do not, then yes, the distant, but not completely unthinkable military option might begin to loom larger in the minds of politicians in both Washington and Tel Aviv.
Having started an unpopular war already, having no prospect of being re-elected to anything, President Bush might decide that, in the absence of allies, there is no other way. For the first time in a long time, it really is up to Europeans to influence what comes next.
Like I said before, Bush has the weather guage becuase he has nothing to lose. That's why his rhetoric is becoming more "coercive" (how can rhetoric "coerce" without force or its implied use? Go back and read your Schelling) as the planning goes on...
Monk 
