Disaster Bound in the Land of Nod
As I wrote earlier this year, the very best outcome of a war with Iran – the most benign result possible to imagine – will be the deaths of thousands of innocent people and a floodtide of terror and carnage set loose on a world in overwhelming economic crisis. And that's the best outcome. The worst is the slaughter of millions of innocent people from the nuclear attacks that we know George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have advocated in their war planning: perhaps tens of millions dead, hundreds of millions poisoned, whole nations brought to ruin and a planet mortally sickened. Between these two poles of ungodly mass slaughter and unfathomable genocide lie the only possible realistic outcomes of a war with Iran. And we stand on the very brink.
In his book and on his blog, Glenn has done as much as anyone to point out the vast, abysmal canyon between the complex realities of Iran today and the sinister caricatures employed by the Bush Administration and the cheerleaders for war. He has not been alone in this, of course; Juan Cole, for example, has been on the case from the beginning (and is still on it now, near the end). Arthur Silber has been unrelenting in his clarion calls against the coming war, and the underlying, unexamined, bipartisan arrogance driving us toward fresh disaster.
In fact, there has been no dearth of readily available reports, analyses and commentaries -- even in the corporate media -- exposing the Administration's lies and distortions. And as Glenn points out in his blog post today -- a dissection of Michael Gordon's servile ministering in the New York Times -- much of this unmasking has come from top military brass and other big beasts of the Establishment. In terms of the amount of open dissent on the part of "serious" players, there is no comparison between the current anxiety-ridden situation and the eager war-drumbeating in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Yet look where we are: A passel of aircraft carrier groups flexing muscles in the Persian Gulf. American commanders in Iraq asserting the direct involvement of the Iranian government in the killing of U.S. soldiers: a charge which, as a casus belli, far outstrips the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or, indeed, the supposed potential threat from Iraq's supposed WMD, a flimsy charge that even so was sufficient to launch the last war. And the U.S. House of Representatives declaring by a near-unanimous margin that Iran's elected president is a genocidist -- an official, formalized version of the oft-repeated charge over the years that America's enemy of the day is "another Hitler."
Meanwhile, even as the Democrats enthusiastically collude in the Administration's fearmongering portrayal of the Iranians as irredeemably evil American-killing nuclear Nazis, the detailed military planning for the strike on Iran is continuing at the highest levels, as Sy Hersh noted recently. The plan is for a sneak attack -- a "new Pearl Harbor," you might say -- that can be launched within 24 hours of Bush's steely nod.
Thus, despite the abundance of well-marshaled, widely disseminated facts and arguments that completely demolish the Administration's case for attacking Iran, there appears to be nothing out there that can stop that nod, whenever Bush decides to give it. As the Michael Gordon story shows, when it starts getting down to the nitty-gritty, the media will fall in line and play their part. Most of the military officers who have publicly expressed skepticism about the charges against Iran -- or who have privately voiced their misgivings about the folly of an attack -- have been pushed aside, like ex-Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Peter Pace, as Glenn noted today. The Democratic-led Congress, as we've seen, is even more bellicose in its rhetoric than the Bush Administration. As for public opinion, no one can believe that this gang of deeply unpopular lame ducks is worried about that anymore. And in any case, as I noted elsewhere today, when the deal goes down, how much of the American public will actually oppose "defending our troops" against the "aggression" of the "new Hitler"?
This is, by any measure, an extraordinary situation. It has the tang of madness in it. There are of course "rational" reasons why the Bush Faction and its followers want war with Iran, and the political, financial, strategic and ideological aggrandizement they think they will gain from it. But the invasion and destruction of Iraq show how remorselessly -- how irrationally -- they pursue their agenda, no matter what the cost in human life and global destabilization. With our institutions unable or unwilling to serve as a firebreak (or in the House's case, actually throwing more oil on the fire), and a public distracted, bamboozled and disengaged, we have been left at the mercy of these remorseless and irrational operators....waiting helplessly for the nod.
I and the rest of the world have been holding our breaths on this for years.
I think that the chief reason not to attack Iran is that there is no genuine reason to actually do it, and the costs and risks are so obvious and horrific, that nothing but a madman or a mad nation would countenance it.
If America actually does it, then you can just paint swastikas on your doors. You will have condemned yourself in the eyes of the world.
Hitler was allowed Austria and then Czechoslovakia. He was not allowed Poland.
America has been allowed Afghanistan and Iraq. Will it be allowed Iran?
July 3, 2007 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is in a similar position to a billionaire. They have enormous wealth, oil, and the world is full of people who will do anything to take it from them. Unfortunately, Dick Cheney is in control in our country, and when he wants something he usually just takes it. Dick Cheney is missing some important characteristics of a human being, and that puts Iran and the world at grave risk.
Iran can stop all of this madness at any time, not by ignoring Israel, but by simply giving the oil to American corporations favored by Dick Cheney. The legal word for this is extortion, but when dealing with another nation, legalisms don't apply.
Our problem is that Iran isn't likely to give up the oil just to please Dick Cheney. They are much more likely to believe that he really does possess those qualities that define being human. And, unless there is some way to delay all of this for another 2 years Iraq will soon be seen as a minor irritation by the world.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 3, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The original post on why Iran isn't a threat is great, but I still can't get up anger at the war mongering, much less blame the Democrats, too. It's a right-wing dream, but even with this nutty administration it was just last winter's distraction, in between the ISG and the surge. They throw those things out partly to please the base, but mostly because only constantly shifting the topic of discussion prolongs the war until (a) a token reduction of maybe 100 people is passed off as peace come fall 2008 to pretend to appease the public and get Republicans elected and (b) the war and its aftermath land on the next president. No one will invade Iran because no one can.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 3, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again. Predictions of a looming US war against Iran have become as common a perennial among some factions on the American Left as predictions of Christ's imminent return in Fundamentalist Christian circles. Sorry to rain on the Schadenfreude parade, but ain't going to happen. Even Dick Cheney, lacking the magical powers of Lord Voldemort (whom he otherwise is starting to resemble), cannot conjure fresh troops out of thin air-- and the US military is now stretched thin to the breaking point. I doubt we could mount an invasion of Liechtenstein at this point. Of equal (perhaps greater) importance is the fact that war with Iran would be a political calamity of the first magnitude for the GOP, which is still hoping to find a pony in the manure of the coming election season. So while we will be treated to all sorts of sabre-rattling tough talk (that still plays well in certain circles), war with Iran is not of the menu.
July 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
JPF311, it won't be a ground war, and the US military is not strained to the breaking point. The US has large, and largely unused, naval and air forces who are eager to become fully involved in the global war on terror to try out their new weapons, maintain their budgets and win some battle stars. Looking at it another way, if the current administration could invade Iraq without cause and become popular, it can certainly bomb the country (Iran) that is doing so many dastardly things as recounted by various experts, including killing US soldiers and making plans for genocide according to the US House of Representatives. (Representatives?)
The US also fancies itself as a (catch-up) player in asymmetric warfare so undoubtedly (and according to Sy Hersh) we have special forces, military and civilian, in Iran causing mayhem.
Actually, according to any rational analysis, we are already at war when you consider sanctions, three nuclear carrier groups, etc but here we're talking about a full shooting/bombing war, shock and awe.
July 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we certainly hope it won't be a ground war, because in any such ground war, the United States might well be in big trouble.
While the military as a whole is not stretched to the breaking point, the army and national guard is. We see this with stop loss programs, extending tours of duty, plummeting morale, and systemic manpower and equipment shortages.
Currently, the bulk of America's active combat troops are stuck in Iraq, training to go to Iraq, or just rotated out of Iraq. Throw in forces already committed in the Persian Gulf, and stationned in places like Afghanistan, Kuwait, Dubai and Quatar, and you're looking at a substantial majority of available deployment.
There's very little extra room to requisition troops from.
So, for instance, in the event of a general uprising in Iraq and Afghanistan, or a successful Iranian thrust into these areas, American forces are in big trouble.
Of course, we have the advantage of the Air Force and Navy.
But the Navy will be forced to operate out of the Persian Gulf, which is a comparatively narrow place, particularly the strait of Hormuz. Naval ships in the Gulf may well be vulnerable to Iranian ground based missiles. Or to more imaginative tactics.
The Air Force is great for shock and awe. But let's keep it in perspective. Aerial bombardment essentially failed as a tactic by Germany against England in WWI, by Germany against England (the Blitz) in WWII, by England and the US against Germany in WWII (Industrial production actually rose during bombing), by the United States against North Vietnam (7.5 million tons of bombs dropped, literally, a thousand pounds of explosive for each Vietnamese man, woman and child), against Japan in WWII (took the Atom bombs to do the trick.) And most notably, it failed in the most recent Iraq War... after Shock and Awe, the troops had to go in, and ultimately, it was bribing Saddam's generals that did the trick.
There is reason to assume that Iran has hardened its defenses, command and control, and key facilities so as to resist aerial bombing. The list of potential targets is disconcertingly long. It's a big country with a lot of people.
And there may be reason to fear that Iran may have air defenses, particularly missile systems, which might make Aerial bombardment a twisty proposition.
Even assuming the ability to attack with naval and air power with impunity (never make assumptions), we should not discount the possibility that Iran may be able to counterattack through covert or disruptive operations, direct attacks on oil traffic, blocking the strait of hormuz, fomenting insurrections in Quatar and Bahrain, Iraq or Afghanistan, or other means.
It's also an open question as to whether Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India would or could afford to let the United States have a free hand. No one wants to collapse the world economy, but some parties may become willing to risk that collapse to stop a rogue power.
July 3, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am willing give Mr. Floyd an extra plug, even though his bio offers the same. I first became aware of Chris Floyd when he did a regular piece for the Moscow Times, called "Global Eye". His rough analysis was always annotated with several references to available web documents, and was at times a launching point for personal research. Along with Christ Floyd I discovered that The Moscow Times had very good opinion writers including:
Pankin and Kagarlitsky still write for the Moscow Times, and make the paper worth a weekly visit.
Mr. Floyd's present web incarnation is Empire Burlesque (RSS Feed).
Welcome Mr. Floyd, 'tis a pleasant surprise, and thanks for providing a little hope that the left-side of the political bipolarity is not a total loss...
July 3, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree with you Valdron, but never underestimate the stupid audacity of the Pentagon and its can-do minions who I'm sure have plans on every aspect you've mentioned, and then some. Again, the air force and navy need to get into this war or risk becoming obsolete, and Iran has many of the same defensive capabilities as China, which the Pentagon sees as the next 'big one', so let the games begin.
The biggest Iranian counter-threat I see, with all those fat targets in the Persian Gulf, which you mentioned, is their anti-ship capability. Over the past several years, Iran has purchased Sunburn, C-801 and C-802 Silkworm antiship cruise missiles, fast attack missile boats and naval mine warfare capabilities. The Sunburn anti-ship missile can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or a 750-pound conventional warhead within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The C-801 anti-ship cruise missile is a Chinese version of the popular French made EXOCET anti-ship cruise missile, the second generation of anti-ship missiles developed by China. The C-801 can be air-launched and is carried on missile speedboats, submarines, escort boats, and destroyers, and is used to attack destroyers or escort boats. The C-802 “Silkworm” missile was used against the United States escort vessel U.S.S. Stark, causing the death of 37 sailors. It was recently used in the Israeli-Lebanon war by Hezbollah to cripple the Israeli missile boat Hanit in the Mediterranean Sea. The high-tech, anti-ship missile is tough to shoot down, partly because it flies only 20 feet above the water, making it hard to spot by radar. Iran also has sophisticated EM-53 bottom-tethered mines, which it purchased from China in the 1990s. The EM-53 presents a serious threat to major U.S. surface vessels, since its rocket-propelled charge is capable of hitting the hull of its target at speeds in excess of 70 miles per hour.
We can assume that all of these capabilities will be targeted by any US attacking force, but would they stop it all? And if the Persians send a carrier to the bottom, what would the US do? I'm sure this would bump up the rapture index. (link)
July 3, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mais oui! After all, did not the Israeli's put an immediate end to Hezbollah's missile capacity, right on early in their recent war? Were not all Hezbollah's massive stock of 12,000 katyusha missile and unknown quantity of longer range missile decisively destroyed within a day or two of said war? Was not Hezbollah rendered helpless and impotent before the ceaseless bomardment of Israeli warplanes?
Oops. Not quite, perhaps. Although Israel did successfully deplete over 30% of Hezbollah's rocket stocks by having them land and explode in Israel.
Still, Katyusha's are primitive WWII rocket technology, slow moving, short range, easily concealed and moved, difficult to detect.
We have every reason to think that these new Sunburn, Silkworm, C-801, C-802 missiles are easier to detect, target, and stop. After all, they must be fairly huge and unwieldy. It's not like they could be transported in trucks or speedboats, distributed or camouflaged....
And they have a lot further to travel, let's keep that in mind. And the US has anti-missile capabilities like the Patriot.
Hmmm. Kind of screwed.
If the Persians sink an aircraft carrier, then its all over for American hegemony. All those aircraft carrier battle groups become instantly obsolete. The United States will have invested trillions of dollars into a series of floating bathtubs.
No matter what happens to the Iranians, the USA will be permanently pantsed.
July 4, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron, the ten US nuclear carrier groups are already obsolete against a major foe like China. The Chinese have not invested trillions in floating airports and support ships because they have no aggressive ambitions. Instead they have developed a 'swarming' strategy that would send multitudes of relatively inexpensive cruise missiles and high-speed torpedoes against any threatening force off its shores. Ship-based defensive capabilities like Aegis would be completely overwhelmed. Game, set, match--it'd be over quickly and a lot of poor squids would be in the water.
Generally speaking, there has been a revolution in warfare where cheap mines, cruise missiles and rockets employed by partisans (or anyone) have the capability of defeating the best-equipped military forces in history. The evidence is there for anyone to see, but our stalwart congress still gives the Pentagon over half a trillion a year for their useless toys and the people to operate them although the US is not threatened by any military force (but it is great corporate welfare).
July 4, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, Don, Don,
Sweet, naive, loveable Don. C'mere you crazy cat, I'll give you a noogie. You keep trying to live in a world of logic and reason where human beings, all else being equal, will approach their environment rationally and make sensible decisions.
You silly, silly goose.
Human beings only do the sensible thing after the pooch has been royally screwed, the house is burning down, the daughter is pregnant and the son has been caught in mom's lingerie.
Now, you can make all the claims you want that America's mighty aircraft carrier fleets are already obsolete.
But that's just not the case.
Just as the Polish Horse Cavalry was not obsolete in 1938, but was in fact a viable and essential part of Poland's military strike force. A strike force that the Poles agreed was capable of routing a german advance and sweeping across the open country of the German frontier.
Here's the thing. The Polish Horse Cavalry was not obsolete in 1938, and the American Aircraft Carrier fleets are not obsolete now.
The Horse Cavalry wasn't obsolete until that obsolescence was demonstrated by slaughtering them rapidly, in great numbers and at little cost.
The American Carrier fleets will not be obsolete until that obsolescence is demonstrated by some prospective victim... like Iran, sinking one or two rapidly, easily and at little cost.
That's the way it works Don. We can sit back and yak all we want about obsolescence in theory. But in the real world, there's shipyards, there's shipbuilders, there's all sorts of infrastructure, there's highly trained crew, huge military allocations. There's a whole pile of very expensive investment by a whole raft of parties, who are very committed to this huge military infrastructure. They're not going to listen to you, they're not going to listen to me, and they're certainly not going to listen to that fickle whore called Reason, who lifts her skirts every time better evidence comes along. Nope, their girl is Faith, and her ugly but reliable sister, inertia.
And the only time Faith fails is when a whole lot of people die.
July 4, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron, a good story but their best girl is actually Profits and she never fails; in fact she puts out the most WHEN a whole lot of people die. What a vamp, eh?
Enough about the navy, here's an army viewpoint:
Excerpts from an article in Inside Defense (subscr reqd):
“The major concern is, while we’re doing all this COIN [counterinsurgency] . . . do we have battalions that can still do an attack or a major defense, or brigades that can coordinate three battalions attacking an objective?” said Dennis Tighe, deputy director of the Combined Arms Center for Training . “Maybe we’ve got some problems there.”
Earlier this year, Maj. Gen. Robert Williams, the commander of the Army Armor Center at Ft. Knox, KY, raised similar doubts.
“I am concerned,” he wrote in the January/February issue of Armor magazine, “based on reports from the field as well as observations of training units, that the long war is taking a toll on our core competencies.”
---
"the long war is taking a toll on our core competencies"
Hey, general, it's been a long war because the army is incompetent in the core competency of 'counter-insurgency'. But the general loves his tanks too much to get a grip on reality. Reminds me of the Polish Horse Cavalry . . .
July 4, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink