The Next War
It's always looming. But has our military learned the right lessons
from this one to fight it and win?
By Wesley K. Clark
Sunday, September 16, 2007; B01 / Washington POST op-ed
Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared
commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face
in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to
represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling
to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a
"cakewalk" gone wrong.
Petraeus will not be the last general to find himself explaining how a
military intervention has misfired and urging skeptical lawmakers to
believe that the mission can still be accomplished. For the next war
is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S.
military can adapt in time to win it.
Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical
state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that
now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its
expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies [sic!] such as the
Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and
far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. {General,
did you know that Hamas is Sunni?] As Iran seems to draw closer to
acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be
president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that
goal.
Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq
fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the
use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options
that policymakers face.
The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let's
say you're planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint
Chiefs. Your list of targets isn't that long -- only a few dozen
nuclear sites -- but you can't risk retaliation from Tehran. So you
allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you'd aim to strike
every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage
site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices
from soaring, you'd have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and
the big ports and load points. You'd need to use B-2s and lots of
missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out
particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned
air reconnaissance. And don't forget the Special Forces, to penetrate
deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran's
nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably
skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the
brink of getting the bomb.
But if it's clear how a war with Iran would start, it's far less clear
how it would end. How might Iran strike back? Would it unleash
Hezbollah cells [???] across Europe and the Middle East, or perhaps
even inside the United States? Would Tehran goad Iraq's Shiites to
rise up against their U.S. occupiers? {Isn't the current Iraqi
government Shiite, General?] And what would we do with Iran after the
bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with
the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: Iran as a
chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as
a hardened and embittered foe?
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401973_pf.html
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
