Iran time again
There is much liberal fear right now that we're gearing up for a fight in Iran. This is not without foundation, as we've done some drum pounding about just that. However, I think it is vanishingly unlikely that the outgoing Administration will invade another country as some form of last act.
There is a reason I think this, and it has to do with both military and political calculus. These go hand in hand, of course, so bear with me while I go through it.
John McCain and President Bush are both saying repeatedly that, "the surge is working." The surge is an increase in troop levels coupled with different methods of handling the conflict in Iraq. Both of these men have stated that we're going to be in Iraq for quite some time whether we like it or not.
When you couple the above belief with the Military recruiting problems, you come away with a military that is already fully committed. We've issued stop-loss orders to try and keep people in the service, but even that isn't quite enough to keep our deployment levels where they are right now for much longer. We will have to draw down troops to give them a break, and to try and match our deployment levels with the incoming volunteers.
Iran is going to be a tough nut to crack. The populace already considers America deeply suspect, so we will not be greeted by cheers as we drive down city streets in our tanks. The Iranian regime is the kind that would absolutely prepare its citizens for a long guerrilla war well before we step over the borders. Attempting to commit regime change in Iran will be a bloody, grinding campaign. This is the kind of conflict that would require the undivided attention of the US Military.
Right now we're rather divided militarily. Iraq is occupying a lot of our resources, and most of the rest is in Afghanistan. The best we can hope for are a few 'surgical strikes' on key sites and get the hell out. Unfortunately that would galvanize the Iranian populace against us in ways that'll make our lives very hard in Iraq. But, it is Iran military action we could do with our current force levels.
What's more, with our existing deployment levels in Iraq we simply don't have enough available troops, on even a short-term basis, to pull off a full scale invasion of Iran. And even if we did, both Presidential candidates will come out strongly against the idea. Why's that, you ask?
Because any invasion of Iran will be a long, bloody affair that'll occupy a lot of our military resources. Since we're already in Iraq to the extent we are, additional troops will have to come from somewhere. And that somewhere would have to be a draft. If there is one message a person running for national offices does not want to give, it is, "Vote for me, and I'll abduct your 19 year old sons at gun point and send them to the desert to die." We get this every time draft re-authorization bills come up in the Senate, and some of those Senators don't have to worry about re-election for 4 years.
McCain and Obama are up for re-election right now, and they'll either both have to come out for a draft, or both against it. Considering the anti-war wing of the Democratic party, there is no real way for Obama to support a draft. I also believe McCain is politically savvy enough to see those electoral tea leaves and follow Obama's lead on it.
Militarily, the "best" the war-hawks can hope for is to kick over the Iranian hornets nest and make them really and specifically angry at us. Considering that the US is actually sending a real officially recognized official to Iran, I think even the White House can see the reality on the ground and in the political landscape.
There is a reason I think this, and it has to do with both military and political calculus. These go hand in hand, of course, so bear with me while I go through it.
John McCain and President Bush are both saying repeatedly that, "the surge is working." The surge is an increase in troop levels coupled with different methods of handling the conflict in Iraq. Both of these men have stated that we're going to be in Iraq for quite some time whether we like it or not.
When you couple the above belief with the Military recruiting problems, you come away with a military that is already fully committed. We've issued stop-loss orders to try and keep people in the service, but even that isn't quite enough to keep our deployment levels where they are right now for much longer. We will have to draw down troops to give them a break, and to try and match our deployment levels with the incoming volunteers.
Iran is going to be a tough nut to crack. The populace already considers America deeply suspect, so we will not be greeted by cheers as we drive down city streets in our tanks. The Iranian regime is the kind that would absolutely prepare its citizens for a long guerrilla war well before we step over the borders. Attempting to commit regime change in Iran will be a bloody, grinding campaign. This is the kind of conflict that would require the undivided attention of the US Military.
Right now we're rather divided militarily. Iraq is occupying a lot of our resources, and most of the rest is in Afghanistan. The best we can hope for are a few 'surgical strikes' on key sites and get the hell out. Unfortunately that would galvanize the Iranian populace against us in ways that'll make our lives very hard in Iraq. But, it is Iran military action we could do with our current force levels.
What's more, with our existing deployment levels in Iraq we simply don't have enough available troops, on even a short-term basis, to pull off a full scale invasion of Iran. And even if we did, both Presidential candidates will come out strongly against the idea. Why's that, you ask?
Because any invasion of Iran will be a long, bloody affair that'll occupy a lot of our military resources. Since we're already in Iraq to the extent we are, additional troops will have to come from somewhere. And that somewhere would have to be a draft. If there is one message a person running for national offices does not want to give, it is, "Vote for me, and I'll abduct your 19 year old sons at gun point and send them to the desert to die." We get this every time draft re-authorization bills come up in the Senate, and some of those Senators don't have to worry about re-election for 4 years.
McCain and Obama are up for re-election right now, and they'll either both have to come out for a draft, or both against it. Considering the anti-war wing of the Democratic party, there is no real way for Obama to support a draft. I also believe McCain is politically savvy enough to see those electoral tea leaves and follow Obama's lead on it.
Militarily, the "best" the war-hawks can hope for is to kick over the Iranian hornets nest and make them really and specifically angry at us. Considering that the US is actually sending a real officially recognized official to Iran, I think even the White House can see the reality on the ground and in the political landscape.
posted by Corwin at 9:26 AM
<< Home