War Or Capitulation
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (76) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Those are the options facing the United States and Western Civilization in dealing with Iran.
Two fairly credible guys present a pretty tight case for their opposing points of view on the ultimate outcome.
Read on.
Reuel Marc Gerecht advances the theory that the Bush Administration will capitulate to the idea of a nuclear Iran.
Odds are the Bush administration will acquiesce to Khamenei’s bomb. It has been overwhelmed and deflated by Iraq. The “Iraqi” arguments against bombing Iran are among the weakest proffered by the anti-bombing critics--would that we only had to worry about Iranian mischief in Mesopotamia. But Iraq has, it appears, robbed the administration of its will in the Middle East and beyond. Odds are the American “realists” will get their chance to see what it’s like to live with a nuclear clerical regime.
On the other hand Robert Kagan writes that if the Bush Administration were planning to go to war, this is exactly what we would see.
Let's imagine, and this is purely hypothetical, that President Bush has already decided that he will not leave office in January 2009 without a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. Let's imagine that he has already determined that if he cannot obtain Iran's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program voluntarily and verifiably, then he will order some form of military action to destroy as much of that program as possible before he leaves. Let's imagine that he has resolved not to end his two terms in office the way Bill Clinton ended his, by leaving every major international crisis -- from Iraq to Iran to North Korea to al-Qaeda -- for his successor.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Bush had made such a decision. What would he be doing right now? The answer is that he might be doing exactly what he is doing.
He might be engaging in a prodigious and extended diplomatic effort to bring together the international community and, failing that, America's leading democratic allies in a unified effort to convince the Iranians that they should voluntarily give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Elements in truth in both and how this plays out by January 2009 will be a function of the strength of the president. If George Bush continues to give ground on important parts of the war on terror, acquiescing to Arlen Specter’s interminable meddling on both the NSA surveillance program and military tribunals, and the foreign policy nomneklatura gains influence then we will see a defeat in Iraq, a rout out of Southwest Asia and the Middle East, and a nuclear Iran dominating the Persian Gulf.
On the other hand, Bush has promised on several occasions to not put current problems off on his successor. Iran and North Korea are clearly two problems that must be solved if Bush is to be true to this pledge.
Both crises are coming to a head at an incredible pace, the choices are few, un-nuanced, and grim. War or capitulation.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Initial Reports... — Comments (24) »
War Or Capitulation 76 Comments (0 topical, 76 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The big problem with going to war in Iran (or N. Korea) is not one of a lack of troops that the left likes to discuss, but a lack of money. The war in Iraq has become an economic quagmire which will alone prevent us from dealing with what many thought was the real regional threat Iran. Our economy (and thus the populace) simply cannot afford a war in Iran. Between the mother of all oil spikes and interest rates jumping on insecurity and borrowing, a war with Iran would do nothing more than cripple our economy and guarantee the Dems all 3 branches in 08.
on capitulation now, war later whether we want it or not.
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.Winston Churchill
"now for something completely different" moment:):):) I needed it after reading blackhedd's bleak assessment, which I happen to just as bleakly agree with.
...but I'm afraid Gerecht has the administration gauged correctly in this. Except for the occasional belligerent speech (usually given in front of a military audience), the President and everyone in his administration (well, except Cheney, bless his heart) is sending out a serious "we're exhausted and ready to wind this down ASAP" vibe. I've heard/seen nothing recently that makes me think that these folks are even toying with the idea of doing what needs doing re: Iran, Syria and North Korea. I think the Brent Scowcroft crowd (the Condi Rice crowd?) has carried the day yet again, sad to say...
the realistic side of me says there is now way to avoid this. I think Iran wants it. Period.
Adn because of that, I think Syria and others are ready to go.
Thisnis the classic "go time"...it almost seems orchestrated to NOT give us an option.
Just my opinion.
or do you just play one on TV?
The Air Force, since Tora Bora, has been developing weapons that dig very deep and make a very big boom, to say the least. Do not underestimate the USAF's ability to kill people and break things because you would likely be wrong.
the left will never tolerate another "adventure" no matter how much it makes sense. No amount of intel will change that; the only thing that will change it is a nuclear weapon detonation. And I have serious doubt that short of it being in this country even that would change attitudes.
The left and their handmaidens in the press have just about sapped the will from enough Americans that we will put up with just about any attrocity as long as it doesn't happen here.
may already be trying that in the southwest.
last sentence. It would have to be non-conventional across a wide area. Even a single nuke hit would not take out their overall program, we will have to destroy the country in total.
Oh, and then take the oil.
Those that would have nuclear weapons have already one-upped you.
As long as they obey the NPT, we don't have a legitimate reason to act.
Dozens (hundreds) of loose former-SSR nukes that DO exist are much more troublesome than chasing shadows, imo...
Remember Bam? I think that a nuclear reactor in Iran is MUCH more of a problem for THEM than it is for us...
I don't dispute that they were vile, egomaniacal despots. But that does not make them irrational. We came to the brink of nuclear war with Kruchschev and he blinked because at the end of the day he was rational; nuclear war would cost him the whole ball of wax, and he would do this for the sake of Fidel Castro?
No one disputes that the war against Islamofacsism is going to take a long long time. But that does not mean that it makes sense to allow the mullahs to have nuclear weapons and an opportunity to see the result accelerated in their favor.
I'm afraid my meager intellect fails to comprehend what bearing either 1st or 2nd Manassas have to do with the argument about what to do about Iran.
I'd say go for it and good riddance. But it is my country too and your "strategy" (or should I say lack of one) leads to disaster.
My point was that we shouldn't include "what this will do to our economy and Republican control" in our list of logical steps or considerations.
...if we WERE to drop the nuclear penetrators* ... They're not as effective as they'd have us believe... (Physics Today article)
* (good movie, by the way)
The Dems would not be guaranteed ANYTHING in any election. If we have exhausted all alternatives and the President is convinced going to war is the only way to reduce the threat of Iran getting a nuclear bomb to throw on a missile, the American voter will back that decision if it is explained to him. I am not talking about another Iraq, rather a strategic bombing campaign over a few weeks to reduce Iran's military, government and nuclear program to rubble. We don't have to stay there on the ground in Iran to hurt Iran and stop their ambitions.
The reason the Dems are not capable of winning any branch of elected government is that they are not serious anymore. They have surrendered, some silently, some loudly, to the moonbat left. The average American can hate Bush personally, but go vote tomorrow for a Republican for the House, for the Senate, and Rudy Guiliani, George Allen, or Mitt Romney for President. Hating Bush is not a plan for our country and running against him is a waste of Dem money.
...would be far more pleasant than what's ahead for us.
...self to mainmast...
... and now we may have to suffer the consequences of that action by leaving Iran alone."
And if you are correct and we must now "leave Iran alone", it is not a result of George Bush "shooting his wad in Iraq". It is a direct result of the disgusting actions of most Democrats, some Republicans and virtually the entire American press. They, and they alone, bear the responsibility for crippling our freedom of action in Iran, no one else. And they bear the sole responsibility for the problems that we are going to have to deal with for the next 20 years; all they have done by their cowardly actions is to cause our children to have to bear this burden.
that we cannot afford it in a literal sense, but that the cost of a war with Iran would essentially prevent the war from happening in the first place (at least sustained or successful). Unless Iran directly attacks us (which would galvanize support), the populace will not back a war that results in $4+/gallon gas and high interest rates from global tensions (plus the accompanying inflation). Bush shot his wad in Iraq and now we may have to suffer the consequences of that action by leaving Iran alone. I always said that of the 3 members of the Axis of Evil, Saddam was the most stable since all he wanted was to be in charge, while the other two were nuts.
You're quite right of course, but does that mean that we should not try to take them out should it come to blows? I'll take a damaged, Iranian, nuclear bomb making plant over an unscathed one any day. We cannot just sit back and do nothing. I'm quite sure that even a primitive nuclear warhead would devastate a city, in fact we've seen it happen.
So, is it that you don't think Iran is capable of making a nuclear bomb, or you just don't believe them when they say that they will use one as soon as they have it developed?
let's just give all dictators an nuke and then we can contain them.
Brilliant idea, Alexs. Now if've got to go give my 4 y.o. sun my Ruger Blackhawk so I can contain him.
I was responding to this statement;
"All I can say is, don't underestimate the power of the USAF to strike an Iranian bunker conventionally."
And again I state air strikes don't work for strategic resolutions. A thermonuclear strike may, especially if large and on many locations, but not airstrikes.
rocket-assisted B-61 Mod-11 bombs ready to go that penetrate hundreds of feet into the ground and cut through hardened concrete like butter, and they are conventional. The likelihood that the Iranian fortifications can withstand multiple hits from these warheads is near zero. Anything man can build man can destroy.
The Warsaw Pact stored their munitions and fuel in hardened underground bunkers that could withstand a nuclear war, but we developed rocket assisted bombs with special payload canisters that could penetrate them. The current munitions we have are the culmination of Cold War technology that has already proven to be effective.
The fact that Iran buried their programs within mountains or deep beneath the earth does not impress the boys at R&D. They have been perfecting these weapons for sixty years, and the current incarnations are absolutely lethal.
What about Kosovo?
It did the job in the Cold War after all, kweeping the death tolls low and allowing the superiority of our political and economic system to prevail naturally.
we were not dealing with a Soviet Union leadership that believed in the imminent return of Lenin and the establishment of a 1000 year communist caliphate.
Containment and MAD work when all the parties are rational.
I kept thinking big air campaigns, but you picked the perfect example of an air operation that was tactically successful and fulfilled a strategic objective.
Unfortuantely, our enemies have learned and I still do not believe we can hit Iran with air alone and find success.
You said successful. My bad for not reading the parent to every single comment; your bad for not stipulating.
So I would counter "Osirak," if you're going to add that qualifier.
My mistake. It's the BLU-122 that's conventional. The B61 is nuclear, and the new one is the "low-yield", penetrating version. I was never an ordinance guy...
I have been calling for a two-state solution for quite some time. It's the only thing that's going to save the big red middle. Let NY and CA form their more perfect civil union. I'm even willing to let them have access to the the I-90 corridor so they can commute between their alternative lifestyle, multiculturally sensative, smoke-free homes and communities...providing we get to remove all of the exit ramps in between.
Then when these northeast libs and left coast loons talk about fly-over states, it'll have much more practical and physical meaning to them than just as an off-handed political slur.
enough maybe they'll get fed up and throw us out :-)
they don't work and have never worked. Air campaign activities are multipliers, not solution solvers.
Even if you had Thor with orbital control and delivery, you could not be guarenteed to take out uncertainly located deep targets.
The only certain air attack would be complete thermonuclear devastation to the whole of Iran. Which is something Israel may yet do for us.
airstrikes didn't do it...it was fear of boots on the ground that finally turned that one!
and Mao Tse Tung was "rational" is, well, just bizarre beyond belief. If even the latter day leadership of the Soviet Union had been "rational" rather than deluded by their ideology, and thus able to see what failures they were, they would not have remained Communists. Even Gorbachev didn't quite grasp the extent of the failure until he had his nose rubbed in it.
And I repeat: containment works. And that is the strategy we should use. Islam is not going to be defeated overnight. It will require a long and exquisitely careful struggle waged not just with occasional bombs and bullets but with diplomacy, special ops and a whole lot of propaganda (in the good sense). This will indeed be Cold War II. We're just going to have to wait this folly out, until it finally dies of its own incompetence and impossibility.
Unless of course you prefer a disaster rather like that the Union suffered at Bull Run/Manassas by hasty and ill-thought actions-- but one costing several orders of magnitude more lives and making our ultimate victory much more problematic and costly.
... if you think aerial bombardment can take out Iran's nuclear program, unless you mean a re-enactment of Hiroshima with modern equivalents.
You know, the Iranians aren't like the fleeing Taleban/Al Qaeda fighters. They're not just diving into deep caves. The Iranian nuclear program has the luxury of being built into well-developed bunkers deep underground.
But yes, we have been developing ways to get at those anyway. There have been NUCLEAR bunker buster programs. As I implied, the only way we're going to get them is to make the first atomic strike in this war.
not just an expert on aerial bombardment weapons development (about which you happen to be wrong), but also an expert on the defensive capability of the Iranian nuclear programs' bomb shelters.
There are too many people who read the news and other open source information and assume that our government is still depending on the weapons used in the last war to fight the next one.
All I can say is, don't underestimate the power of the USAF to strike an Iranian bunker conventionally. That is all I have to say about that.
War....the only chance for peace in the future.
to consider secession. Who would stop the South? Most of the military is here. The North-east and west coast offer very little, just a lot of debt, socialism, hatred, and deviants.
If the nation is so weak willed that it would not protect Israel, than it would not be able to stop its own states from leaving the union. There a lot of people in the middle who do not like the culture or economic models of NY and CA, so why not say to heck with them. It would be great not to pay the huge federal taxes and debt they impose on us.
Taking "All Logical Steps"
The problem is that, much as we and our leaders may wish otherwise, the enemy has decided that "All Logical Steps" will merely be used to provide more time for him to prepare for the war that He wants.
We can continue with the empty gestures and hope the the Lord our God steps in and adjusts the Mullahs in the opposite manner of how he did Pharaoh (anyone want to set the odds on this?). But that's about all we can do other than go to war Now. on Our terms.
...nonstop and escalating attacks on American sovereignty and cultural identity (like from the open borders wing of the Republican party, unfortunately led by our President, and the diversity fetish folks and lots of others), I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see some sort of breakup (official and/or violent or not) take place a few decades down the road..maybe sooner...the world at large seems to be breaking itself up into smaller and smaller "tribes" again, and I'm afraid we've let that mindset infect us, too.
Why not move to have those states thrown Out of the Union?
Again, who would stop you?
Seriously, we have the Voting Clout to make the world turn. Let's use it. Get rid of the Politicians and send some Warriors to Congress and the Senate...
I have been offline for about 12hrs. :(
I haven't heard any reactions by our opponents on the other side of the ditch. I haven't seen much news, so don't know if they are trying to hang the Admin. out to dry.
But lets say that left pols and the media are out pulling their crap, I just can't see that crippling the judgement on this. Even the maggot lefty friends of mine pony up that at some point, enough is enough.
The kicker is if those hostages end up outside of Lebanon.
also said that 'you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing --- after they have exhausted all other options.'
I am afraid that the left and the press has accomplished their goal; the will has been sapped from enough Americans that nothing short of a direct attack on this country will move us to act --- and even that might not do it.
and maybe it will come down to the message, and how it's delivered.
i think the costs of unaction would be huge. Just me, I think Hugo and Kim are watching this with great interest. I think others as well may be watching to see how/if the US asserts themselves.
To much on the table. I really think the Admin. cares...about doing the right thing.
...completely accurate assessment of our current situation.
I guess the liberals in this country and around the world are waiting for the MAITREYA to come and be the peace maker?
reservoir of capital, capacity and resources, if we are willing to tap them for those purposes.
Iraq is not anywhere close to an economic quagmire, how in the green earth can you claim that? We have put a much larger % and numeric monetary effort into conflicts past.
The only reason for not going to war is because too many Americans are ignorant cowards, and nothing else.
a war with Iran would do nothing more than cripple our economy and guarantee the Dems all 3 branches in 08
There are a LOT of things I'd rather see than a democratic administration and a crippled economy. Global nuclear war is not one of them.
I want all logical steps to be taken before war. That said, if it must be war, then it must be war. We cannot give up our lives or our freedom simply because we're scared of the financial consequences.
I think the administration may "care" but caring is not a plan.
I don't think that anyone on the left and in the press, and perhaps even a majority of Americans now, see the cost of inaction as significant let alone huge.
Certainly others are watching, Kim, Hugo, Bin Laden, and a dozen other tin-pot-types, and some not so tin-pot-types like Wen Jiabao of China and Putin, are watching too. The action, or rather inaction, that will be tolerated by the left will haunt us for decades.
Santyana has still to be shown to be wrong.
...there'd be much if any reaction even if the atrocity was here. Maybe if a city or three got vaporized...maybe...but I'd not even bet on much of a response to something like that. I'm not sure Israel getting competely wiped out would even make it thru a whole week's worth of news cycles here, not after seeing just how fast large swaths of this country started wanting to forget all about 9/11 (plus the part that immediately blamed us for it)...I like to think we have a stronger sense of self preservation as a society, but I'm not sure anymore...
you think that we shouldn't spend money on a space program because we have no business shooting all that money into space ...
Money is the least of the problems and is a concern only to people who have no concept of a) huge this economy really is; and b) how and where money is actually spent. The vast majority of the money spent on the Iraq war has been spent right here at home. It went to pay and support all those troops, purchase all that ammunitions, food, etc. That isn't to say that a lot hasn't been spent elsewhere for things like fuel and construction projects (but even large amounts of that went to folks like KBR, etc.). But at the end of the day most of that "money" flowed into the US economy.
The common theme linking Hamas's rockets in Gaza, Hezbollah's rockets in the north, the aborted bombing of Canada's government offices in Ottawa, 9/11, 7/7 and the scores of dead this month in India was pointed out on Hannity Combs last night by Newt Gingrich.
Ultimately, the West is facing an axis of folks whose plans are to use the vast oil revenues to support and fund reinstallation of a Sharia driven new caliphate.
Having nuclear weapons in Iran would sharply strengthen the Iranian hand in that struggle.
Israel to Iran is not the ultimate prize. It is a marker; it removes an outpost of the West in the midst of several oil-rich but economically challenged societies. It points out to those in the Muslim populations (if they choose to consider it) that affluence for the populations can come from creating products (high techs, pharmas, engineering), growing crops, hydrating the desert.
It points out to the Muslims, if they dare consider it, that freedom of speech, of the press, to come and go without fear of reprisals, is a wonderful thing.
And it does so in their midst. America, the big demon, does so from the other side of the globe.
The very successes of Israel and the US in taking the hands they were dealt, building free and vibrant nations from them, must be terrifying to those small groups of thugs who slay enough of their own countrymen to capture the underground wealth, holding the balance of their citizens in fear.
It is our freedoms and our successes which are so threatening to Assad and the Iranian mullahs.
It is why they will keep coming, terrorizing and intimidating our allies (remember the Spanish train bombings, the Dutch slaying?), using every tool at their disposal to bully the world to their way or the highway.
It is why facing down Iran over its hoped for nukes is so critical.
It is why having a clearly defined posture, an idea of why it is important to make this stand or leave our children at peril, of picking up the flag and leading us forward is so critical at this point.
Newt did a pretty good job of it last night. I think I like him.
it may be time to escalate politcal hostilities with the opposition. They will never colaborate or cooperate, so we must aggressively fight them and utterly defeat them.
I don't doubt the explosive power of E=m(c-squared) ... But don't be too sure, is all I'm saying... Thousands of tons of debris is all well and good, but every inch of earth is different, and won't respond the way you want -- it will respond the way it will ...
...that Iran will become nuclear, because you're confident that containment will work against them. Right?
I wanted them to have nuclear weapons, Good grief where did you get that from? What I am objecting to is the notion that ought rush in blindly with guns blazing expecting a quick and easy victory. This is a very complex game and calls for subtlety.
Between war and surrender there are a whole field of options.
so but the morally bankrupt and strategically corrupt notion of letting your enemies arm themselves to the hilt so you can feel good about yourself by containing them has been proven unworkable every time it has been tried.
Our own experience in the Cold War shows it doesn't work. It wasn't until Reagan actively started attempting to roll back Communism in Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and El Salvador that we were able to bring the USSR to heel and collapse it.
So I'd rather take my chances making them fight for their existence than just arm them and hope they can be contained.
Can Your political dream handle?
Have we already forgotten that the Iranians even came right out and Told us where their nuclear progam is being conducted?
It's in massive bunkers UNDER their cities
Yes, we can break their bunkers and kill them. But anything that makes a big enough boom to do what we need it to do will fold the city on top in on itself.
Have you looked at the video of our weapons tests for those weapons? The surface is devastated.
Check the histories again. They didn't surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though they Were a big Part of why.
Their military was gone. Not just beaten but Destroyed.
Their infrastructure was gone.
We could hit them at will with whatever we wanted.
Even After the nukes, they were willing to fight until we proved to them that we could destroy their last refinery (by destroying it).
is that we ought to take no action and depend on some mythical containment. Does that not translate to 'allow them to have nuclear weapons'? It's clear that they want them so not acting to prevent them is tantamount to allowing them to have them and them hoping that we can contain them somehow. Once the maniacs get nuclear weapons there will be no containing them; what do you propose to use to 'contain' them?
The arguement for containment somehow never gets into defining exactly what you use to 'contain' them.
is NOT rush in, guns blazing. We Know what we are dealing with. We Know what they want, assuming they don't already have it. AND what they intend to do with it.
And Containment won't work because, unlike the Soviets and Chinese, these people Do Not Care if they live or die so long as they take a few of us with them...
although you could look to the classic "Mr X" paper from 1947 on how you do containment. (To severely oversimplify, you confront and oppose the adversary on every possible front, social and economic and otherwise, while waging military operations against them through proxies.) Also, Kennan wrote this paper about an adversary of which he had deep, first-hand knowledge, and that was then believed to be 5-20 years away from nuclear. (They turned out to be two years away, at that point.)
But my question for Aleks is much more basic. Again, Aleks, are you willing to accept a nuclear Iran because of your confidence in containment? It's not a trick question. Yes or no will suffice.
I have serious doubts about the efficacy of 'containment.' There are obviously times when you have to accept it as the only method available to you, i.e. a nuclear Soviet Union. But when the adversary does not have that card yet it seems to me to be a legitimate question: exactly how do you 'contain' a mad man with a nuclear weapon?
...from the containment advocates is: do they think this is a strategy for keeping Iran from becoming nuclear, or an acknowledgement that we can't keep that from happening?
my money is on 'containing' them after they have them because afterall our culture is no better than theirs and we can't be reduced to their level :-)
USA--"We're willing to destroy you unless you give up."
Japan--"Naw, we're good, we like fights to the death."
USA, after Hiroshima--"How about now?"
Japan--"Pff... Sunspots."
USA, after Nagasaki--"...Sunspots again?"
Japan--"We surrender."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
The military didn't want to surrender after Nagasaki, I'll grant you. But the Emperor was convinced.
What are the options for knocking out Iran's nuclear capability, at this point? Someone upthread suggested a several-weeks' bombing campaign. A full-scale invasion seems quite unlikely. No one is seriously considering the possibility of a underground guerilla campaign waged against the Iranian regime and aimed at fomenting a "Velvet Revolution."
Bombing seems like the option of choice. Here's the problem: how will we know we've been successful?
I'll leave to the many military types on this board to analyze the possible operational outcomes. But let's assume complete military success: an end to Iran's nuclear capabilities (verifiable by intelligence) and a severe internal weakening of the Iranian mullocracy. To the public eye, (mis)informed by our intelligentsia and our media, this outcome will not appear any different than today. Most of these people are far from convinced that Iran, even a nuclear Iran, presents any danger.
On the other hand, they'll vividly see the corpses of the several hundred thousand civilians (prominently including children) that the Iranians will thoughtfully pre-position near all their key nuclear sites in order to maximize collateral damage. Freedom and peace-loving America will join, in the popular imagination, the ranks of the world's most heinous criminal enterprises, more than likely at the head of the list. For 100 years to come, "Bush" will be the insult that "Hitler" is today.
The world will (invisibly) be a far safer place, and world war will be averted, but the cost will be bitter division within America and complete opprobrium elsewhere in the world. And this will embolden the two biggest losers from the demise of Iran's superpower ambitions, viz. Russia and China, to make even more trouble for us in as many ways as they can.
Is that a better outcome? Yes, if we are able to hold the US together. (I noted with complete fascination the several posts upthread about a split among the states. For those who think I'm cracked for advocating an annexation of Mexico: now you know the real reason why I think we need to do that.) The alternative is for global nuclear war to become a foregone conclusion, as the next several decades see the rise of perhaps a dozen ambitious new nuclear states.
I have to say that I agree with those who believe that the Bush Administration will not be able to muster the will to act militarily against Iran. Our only hope of a good outcome is a Velvet Revolution in Iran, in the next twelve months at the most.
Scylla and Charybdis lie ahead.