Arkin: We’re Preparing For War, And We Should Say So
I don’t always agree with William Arkin, but I do find him interesting much of the time. Today, he takes a look at the military planning re:Iran and reaches a somewhat surprising conclusion: we aren’t being belligerent enough, and as a result, Tehran may not be getting the message that, yes, we will go to war, if necessary, to stop your nuclear ambitions:
The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it “isn’t useful” to discuss American options.
I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. Contingency planning for a full fledged war with Iran may seem incredible right now, and Iran isn’t Iraq. But Iran needs to understand that the United States isn’t hamstrung by a lack of options, Iran needs to know that it can’t just stonewall and evade international inspections, that it can’t burrow further underground in hopes of “winning” because war is messy.
As I’ve said before in these pages, I don’t believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don’t think so because Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons and it hasn’t lashed out militarily against anyone.
But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.
It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn’t make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called “experts” are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.
But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military’s do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.
There’s some truth to that. I’m currently reading The Generals’ War
Second guessing Rumsfeld has become a cottage industry, and I don’t want to pile on unnecessarily, but it’s a good argument that deserves a better reply than my limited knowledge of the situation will allow…
Fascinating perspective. I, undoubtedly like many others, hadn’t even thought in that direction…
Mark–I know I’m biased, but time and time again Rumsfeld has been quite outspoken on Iran and made the point that Iran is being belligerent and “unhelpful” and in my opinion, the most telling thing is that a week ago he flat stopped answering Iran questions. As did Peter Pace. As Pace said on Tuesday, and I’m paraphrasing here, “I’m not going to discuss that [strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities] because that would be giving away military secrets to the enemy.” No one said boo about that answer, but what Pace did there was define Iran as our military foe and suggest that there were secrets afoot that the Iranians might want to know about. Somehow, I don’t think that was lost on Tehran, any more than was Rumsfeld’s change of line. I’ve got to say I think Arkin has it backwards–the message has been sent, it just wasn’t through the detailing of planning in the press.
While I’m on this topic, I wonder if it is it a good or practical thing to have public knowledge of the military plans vis a vis Iran in the pages of the New Yorker, or to have senior military leaders be anything other than completely dismissive of such “reports.” Any such commentary would undermine the hope of a diplomatic solution and immediately hamsting Rice and Bolton–and this discord would immediately become the headline (“Rice says diplomacy sitll an option, Rumsfeld planning nuclear strike on Natanz”). I admit I don’t hold out much hope for a diplomatic solution, but why undermine it–just in case–before the bullets (or whatever) start flying? In any event, it would be nice if we could have some element of surprise with us in this effort, which we will not have if our senior military leaders are providing a road map so that the Iranians can get everything all squared away before we get there–sound familiar?
Which brings me to a pretty basic question: do you think they’re NOT planning?
Which begs a second question:
Do you really think the Iranians need to read it in the western press to realize that they’re planning?
And finally,
Do we need to know what’s in those plans? Really? Or is this the press saying that it needs to know?
I think that’s an important question.
I hope this doesn’t read as combative, but, as you know, I have strong views on this subject.
Good heavens what a rant. Sorry.
Sun Tzu say – misdirect the enemy and conquer in 1000 battles. Stupid general broadcast intentions beforehand.
Hey, you never have anything to be sorry about around here…thanks for the comments…you make some great points, as usual…
“But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.”
This is an important point, but I get the feeling that a lot of people are just dreading this debate and thus aren’t engaging in it and hoping somehow this whole mess will go away. You’ve got hawks who favor a bellicose path, but they are concerned that the American people will not back another war and they don’t want to take on any more nation-building efforts than they already have. And you’ve got doves who want to avoid war, but they don’t really have any other practical alternatives, and they fear that Iran really is gearing up to build nuclear weapons. After all, unlike Saddam, the Iranians are bragging about their capacities.
In many ways, the debate about what to do about Iran will echo the debate about what to do about Iraq, and I think people are just exhausted by the prospect of fighting the same rhetorical battles all over again, especially since there’s so much mistrust between the hawks and doves.
Just thinking out loud.
I’ve posted elsewhere here that we are wasting our time pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran because what they really want is a nuclear weapon. In other words, they are not using this pursuit of a nuclear weapon as leverage to acquire something else.
But it does occur to me that if it is true Iran is active and deeply engaged in the insurgency in Iraq, could it be that all this nuclear development talk is meant to distract us and our military – and possibly undermine whatever is left of the public’s support for our action in Iraq?
Sounds nuts to me too, but…
[...] Mark Coffey posts on a concept presented by one of the Washington Post’s more interesting characters – Bill Arkin. I find myself either strongly against Arkin or for him, depending on the subject. Today, he makes a good point – we may not be threatening Iran enough: [...]
My copy of the New York finally arrived in the mail, and I was able to read Hersh’s report. There are a number of things in the article which were interesting. One thing he mentions is that an attack on Iran would likely energize Hezbollah – which Hersh describes as the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization – to change their stance of neutrality towards the US to one of outright aggression. This could have consequences both in the Middle East and on American soil.
Another possible consequence from an attack on Iran Hersch cites would be an Iranian attack on oil refineries throughout the Middle East.
Hersch speculates that intense pressure by the Americans would only accelerate the development of nuclear weapons. The Iranians certainly noticed that America attacked a country without nukes and has not avoided the Axis of Evil country which does apparently have them.
Finally, Hersch writes that “the Administration’s case against Iran is compromised by its own history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” It’s useful to point out that while many people suspect that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there is only speculation and no proof to support it. Since the Bush administration was so grievously wrong on risk assessment for Iraq, it is inconceivable that we could get any sort of international support for a pre-emptive raid on Iran. Hersch says that even the British are dead set against an American attack on Iran.
peter, you do realize Hersh’s article has been available in its entirety online, for free, for over a week now, don’t you?
Hey, I’m just razzing you…but I tell you one thing, I think we’re going to have to go to war against Iran, and I know full well that it will be ugly. See my most recent post for why…
I distinctly remember that on severl occasions, Iran made overtures to the Bush administration that were rebuffed. In America, our leaders often make the mistake of underestimating the pride that leaders of other nations feel. Both the leaders of North Korea and Iran have been characterized by Bush and by the western press in unflattering ways. The leaders of these two countries have the same DNA, the same emotional needs, the same pride as do our own.
Unless and until we in the west start dealing with the leaders of these nations on at least an impled civil basis, these same negative emotions and frustrations will build leading us farther away from reaching any sort of mutual understanding. I could be flat out wrong, but I get the sense that Bush and those whose counsel he most gives ear to, have little or no interest in making any serious attempt at negotiation.
Everything about Bush–his rhetoric, his body language, his penchant for avoiding face-to-face confrontation with his “enemies”–signals that he prefers a military solution and goes out of his way to avoid any sort of face-toface contact with those whose intentions we most fear.
Mark: even though I work for an Internet company, I would rather read a paper copy of something late than a digital copy early. My boss thinks I am hopelessly antiquated because I have a Rolodex. Some things are so ingrained that it would seem a crime against nature to change them.