Myths About Afghanistan
Victor Davis Hanson on whether Afghanistan is really the "graveyard of empires ..."
The Washington Times is reporting that:
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a prominent proponent in Washington of air strikes against Iran, said that whether the estimate is five years or 10 years, the time span instills complacency in war planning. He said that Mr. Bush is now following the State Department’s diplomatic path, without a clear policy.
“Everyone is in the Jergens lotion mode — ‘woe is me.’ Wringing our hands,” the former fighter pilot said.
Gen. McInerney advocates using B-2 stealth bombers, cruise missiles and jet fighters to conduct a one- or two-day bombing campaign to take out Iran’s air defenses, military facilities and about 40 nuclear targets, which includes a Russian-built reactor and an enrichment plant.
In my post “Did Israel Plan the War? Next on the List: Iran,” I said:
… the use of air power this way absolutely requires very necessary destruction of military infrastructure before the nuclear and oil infrastructure can be targeted (things such as command and control, radar, air fields, surface-to-air missile sites, etc.).
… if the sole goal of a strike against Iran is either to destroy or hold in abatement their nuclear program, then a large scale land invasion not only would be unnecessary, but may even be an impediment. To be sure, air strikes may have to be on-going and periodic in order to prevent rebuilding of the nuclear infrastructure; satellites would have to be re-tasked; intelligence would have to be good (not only for the initial strikes, but also on a continual basis); and the U.S. and world would have to be prepared for very high oil prices.
But the notion that air power cannot destroy infrastructure — if this is what the intention is — is not just false. It is false in the superlative degree. If the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict proves next-to-nothing, it at least proves that infrastructure can be demolished.
Also in my “Iran War Plans,” I pointed out many problems with a ground war with Iran:
- Helicopters do not have the range to get Marines or special forces operators to the nuclear sites.
- The new MV-22 comes close for some of the sites, but there aren’t enough of them in service to effect this troop movement.
- The 82nd and 101st airborne would be shot out of the sky before they ever landed if we dropped them into the belly of Iran. Even if they weren’t, we could not drop heavy equipment in with them.
- If we did a massive land invasion, it isn’t clear what our goal and objective would be: Where would our troops go? What would they do when they got there? How long would they stay there and for what reason?
Once again, if the goal is the destruction of nuclear infrastructure, then this can be accomplished by an air campaign. Our goal should not be nation-building in this instance.
Strict boundary conditions and thought-rules are the order of the day. Let’s keep our eye on the ball. Iran’s nuclear program is the issue in any attack on Iran (we can discuss the closure of the Iranian border with Iraq and Afghanistan in a different context).
And it is nice to see that I stumbled upon the same solution that General McInerney came to by education and study. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.
On September 1, 2006 at 11:30 am, section9 said:
Well, no, as far as diplomacy went, we made a last diplomatic dash at the Iranians for the sake of the Eurotrash, and Iran’s answer was their support for the Hezboallah in the Lebanon War. So Rice has pulled back from endorsing any further efforts to talk with the Iranians, as they have decided on the Hard Line and the Bomb, while the Europeans have decided on Appeasement and the Chinese and the Russians don’t mind if the Iranians get the Bomb. So McInierney’s a little behind the curve. There is the execrable decision to give Khatami a visa, but that mistake won’t be repeated-unless of course we’re meeting him here in secret because, in fact, he’s a rival of Ahmadhi-Nejad’s. There may in fact be a method to that madness.
On September 1, 2006 at 2:09 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Well, I concur that Russia and China do not care whether Iran has the bomb or not. All they care about is [a] influence in that part of the world, and [b] ready access to cheap oil (especially China).
As for McInerney, what exactly do you mean when you say he is “behind the curve?” Unless and until someone gives me a viable means of getting our Marines and special forces operators into Iran, as well as outlines a strategy for where they will go and what they will do when they get there, I will continue to believe that an air war is viable and a ground war would be pointless. If a ground war is necessary, then it is necessary. Let’s do it. But someone has to prove it to me first.
Why would we do it and what would we gain? If we want to knock out or hold in abatement their nuclear program, we can do that with air power.
On September 3, 2006 at 5:53 am, Roy Lofquist said:
Dear Captain,
When I was younger I had answers for most everything. In my dotage I have come to realize that the world is so complex as to be beyond human understanding. The only thing we can hope (pray) for is a government That is grounded in history and reality. In my memory there have been a few: Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and GWB.
I don’t have any confidence in my own prescriptions for the current situation. I take solace in my judgement that the A-team is in charge.
regards,
Roy