Army War College: "No definition of enemy or Goals in the WOT"

The WOT never started. If this were WWII, D-Day would've happened last year, VE Day would've just happened, and we'd be warming up a few nukes for the last remaining countries willing to fight us. As it is, W is aiming at semi-random targets, but avoiding the real enemy.

 

That would be Saudi Arabia.

 

This is the number one complaint of the military people I know. "Y'In? Y'Out?" They are looking at Iraq and know that it will be difficult to decide in the next two years what the US's stand should be on it's presence. It would be easy to stay 100% involved, keep the Iraqi army safe and to the side and also provide an easy scapegoat for the Iraqi government when things don’t go perfectly. It would also be easy to declare victory and go home. It will be hard to handle the back and forth, in and out and in and out again that would be the most effective. Second, as we withdraw, then what? Who do we fight? Anyone? There are always targets Where? When? Hmmmm. That's not so easy. Sure Iran might have to be taken care of but I doubt it. A blockade will probably be enough to take care of the Mullahs.

There's always diplomacy (gasp!) to be done. In which case the military looks to be used as a diplomatic tool much like it was under Clinton. That scenario also makes military people uncomfortable.

 

I haven't read the WC document yet, though I will..

But I think the problems with Iraq are not strategic, but rather tactical. There are things we just didn't do that could have made things go a lot smoother.

--For example, we should have known who the bad guys were way below the decks of cards level, and gotten eveyone else some sort of amnesty. We would no doubt give jobs to guys who didn't deserve to get them back, but even that could be sorted out later.

--We needed to find a Sunni leader/cleric the equivalent of Al Sistani, and get him on our side.

--We should have disbanded the Iraqi Army, yet put it back together a lot faster.

--We should have told Syria to turn over the ex-Baathist thugs, or we'd come to get them ourselves.

--We should have poured billions into the country right away, primarily by giving commanders in the field open check books.

However, we have done a lot of things correctly. Handing over power fast...elections quickly.

One of the problems with our approach is that we have two distinct roles for our military -- war fighting, and peace keeping. We're great at the first, but improvise off-the-cuff on the second. We simply can't do that.

 

You really think so ?

I am afraid that any direct action against Iran only solidifies their current leaderships hold on power.

Reiging in Iran's nuclear ambitions while encouraging a more democratic society should be a combined effort with the EU countries. Unilateral action by the USA, as in Iraq, will be a disaster.

 

I believe both of you are wrong; victims of a self-perpetuating myth about Iran.

Without the intense US propaganda effort against Iran, today's Iran would not be the dynamic and rather open society it has become. Indeed, quite cleverly, the mullahs decided to quietly take in many of the criticisms and strengthen themselves by improving. Lately, they have focused any repressive response mostly on conduct that could fit a Holmes/Brandies like "imminent danger" test.

They are doing this a little haphazardly, but the contours are so clear watching and listening -- not to the reformist press, which includes those who are Iran's version of the NYT and others who fall more in the category of the Village Voice -- but to the "conservative press" in Iran. The most revealing in this regard is Iran's round the clock news network, IRINN. This is no "religious" channel, even if somewhat like FOX, it implicitly promotes the agenda of the so-called "religious right".

Combined with the reality of modern Iran, and not the self-deluding stereotypes -- a reality that shows a dynamic society in the throws of entering the first world going through a path no other country has gone through before, with the US standing in the way and not the country "spoon feeding" it along -- the overall picture you will get is that Iran is a country the US would be foolish not to engage. At the very least, the US should try. Forget the non-sense about "regime change", or certainly of military attacks or sanctions or blockades. These latter "options" are asking for disaster.

I believe if Iran is engaged, and that engagement is not one where the US wants to dictate the terms, the end result will be quite good for both countries. As well as for Israel. On the latter point, let me point out that the more "ambitious" ideas I present about the "Arab-Israeli" conflict (such a one state, confederate solution) don't constitute Iran's "terms for peace". I believe with the proper engagement, Iran will be willing to even recognize Israel, provided the latter make some concessions too. Concessions that in the long run, in an evolving "global economy" and shrinking world, are irrelevant to the what make for security and prosperity.

Proper engagement of Iran will solve a lot of problems in the Middle East. Indeed, the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Tehran, but that is road that cannot be traversed marching there with troops and guns. Some of the concessions in any engagement of Iran are actually ones that strengthen the foundations of a lasting peace in the region.

 

So delusional. All a "blockade" would accomplish would be to make sure the Western economies are left reeling from oil prices that hit the roof.

There is no military solution to the issue, not one that comes with an acceptable price tag or which is superior to what you could get through negotiations. The sooner delusions on this subject, be it focusing on "regime change", or "military strikes", or "sanctions and blockade", are thrown out the window, the sooner the US and Iran can sit down and find a deal that serves the interests of both.

 

There are plenty of military solutions. You just don't like any of them.

 

This assumes "Iran" has a right to exist in its present form.

 

I don't think what I like is the issue that is holding the US or Israel back!

There are no military solutions that come with an acceptable price tag, politically, economically or otherwise.

None.

 

Well since I, one of the many American citizens, play a part in determining that value judgement, let me say that I can think of plenty of solutions with an acceptable political price tag.

I would like the Administration to learn from it's mistakes wrt Iraq. I would like to see more deliberation on the way, take the Europeans along, look for real compromizes, etc., etc. Yet I think we would all agree (present company excepted of course) that a non-democratic Iran with nukes is unacceptable.

 

To make that judgment, you need to have a better understanding of the "cost-benefit" side of the calculus. You neither realize the costs implicated in any military action against Iran, nor understand how little the US can do about Iran's nuclear program without actually occupying the entire country.

Even Bush realizes "Iran is not Iraq"!

The US is doing plenty of "deliberations" on the Iran issue. It has been involved in such deliberations for practically the duration of the Bush administration. It can't decide what to do because unlike Iraq, no one in the know can even pretend there are any "good options". None that involve a "guarantee" that Iran won't be able to build nukes, because it is already too late for that.

The head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization was on a talk show recently, responding to caller concerns about "compromises" Iran was making with the Europeans. Let me summarize the gist of what he had to say:

1) The most critical parts of Iran's nuclear program are not things the US could destory in any air strikes. Today, you can fit all the information necessary for Iran's program in a simple CD disk.

2) The reason the Natanz facility is important to Iran is not because we want to build bombs; that facility was built to eventually house 50,000 centrifuges to provide nuclear fuel for 20 reactors. The amount of enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapons is far less and a facility that could house that number could be built practically in the basement of any apartment in secret. That if Iran wanted to build nuclear weapons, it would have them by now, and if the US and EU push Iran's program underground, they would not deny Iran a nuclear "weapon capablity" but only a realistic "nuclear energy" capability.

3) That the nuclear program transcends even the "sacred regime of the Islamic Republic". Under no circumstance, and for no incentive, would any Iranian official ever compromise on Iran's rights on this issue. That would be treason and the Iranian people would have every right to view a regime that committed such an act in the same light as the Qajar rulers who signed the infamous treaty of Turkemenchai (the peace treaty between Iran and Russia that ceded Iran's territories in the Caucasus to the Russians and gave them some other capitulary rights)! He went on, for emphasis, to say that I care about the nuclear program than this "sacred regime" which I have been a devoted serveant for since its inception. And that is the consensus view of all policy makers in Iran, with the only difference between them a tactical one.

4) That Iran is showing patience in the negotiations with Europe because it knows ultimately there is no other solution then what Iran has been suggesting. And that ultiamtely, both economic prosperity and security, are best served if Iran resolves some of the "misunderstandings" and other issues with Europe.

 

I've said it before and I will say it again. The United States is going to lose in Iraq just as it lost in Vietnam. Making the Iraqis hate us, having an enemy we cannot easily identify (much less fight conventionally), and mounting casualties are going to bite us in the ass in the end.

Oh and by the way, our Army is having lots of hardships meeting recruiting goals. Can't blame those kids for refusing to enter the military if their vehicles aren't even bulletproof.

 

From the report: