Setting aside the debate over whether we should have invaded Iraq...I agree that Rumsfeld's "minimal" army was not the force needed.
Rumsfeld was eager to transform the US military, to prove that a light, slimmed down quick and agile force could wage war in the modern world - to prove that money should be spent on "smart bombs" and air support rather than training and arming troops. It has failed...and will fail if they try the same thing in Iran.
So - again, ignoring the debate over whether the US should now invade Iran - how would you propose such an militant approach to Iran be taken?
Well, it should be painfully evident that invading Iran is out of the question given the corner Rumsfeld has painted us into vis a vis the Iraq and Afiganistan situations. I think we have no recourse except to call up all ready reserves and National guard reserves to finish those jobs.
After that? Draftees don't serve well. And, Europeans are perfectly content to fiddle away while the city burns. Or, kind of a "it's no my job, man" attitude.
I think we Americans are in for a long, hard century.
I agree - a conscripted army doesn't do well unless acting as a defensive army on their own homeland.
I also believe that the military is stretched too thin right now - much less without engaging in a military conflict with Iran.
My question then be, why do we feel that negotiation with Iran - as an equal, not a subordinate - is not an answer?
We also "painted us into a corner" by lumping Iran with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" speech...Iranians aren't stupid, that's why they elected a hardliner that was willing to try to defend their country against a potential attack by the US.
Check out this PBS News Hour story - I think you'd be interested.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/m...iran_09-
13.html
Iran is a special case because of their aggression towards the United States, i.e. the invasion of our embassy in Iran and taking our diplomats hostage.
No matter which country we are talking about, an embassy is considered sovereign territory to the country represented. Iran never apologized for their aggression against us. So, we will not negotiate with them as equals.
No, the Iranian's are not stupid; at least, in the sense of being crafty. But, that doesn't mean they have not been unfairly accused.
For the War itself, I think Rummy was right. And I think the success of the initial phases of the assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq bear that out.
But perhaps what was also needed, seeing as how this is not a Western-style War, is a seperate force trained in occupation and pacification. Holding ground is meaningless unless it is coupled with victory over enemy forces. So, while one part of the armed forces should be the quick, light army invading and destroying the enemy's armies, the other part comes in behind and consolidates.
I think the American Civil War is a case in point, to a certain extent. Union Generals could beat the Confederates and win the battles, but sat back, "holding ground" while the Confederates moved on to their next objective. The Union won eventually when Grant took over and simply followed and attacked the Confederates until they surrendered. Attrition beat the South, not an occupation army.
Rummy may need to concede that.
What about American aggression in deposing of Mossedegh in 1953 and installing a dictatorial and authoritarian Shah?
Have we apologized for that? Why should Iran apologize?
The Civil War reference is a good one. But, I am thinking that, rather than a mobile army that is there today and gone tomorrow has to be supplanted by an army that stays behind; a cop on every corner.
If you think about it, the Civil War was a precursor to WWI trench warfare. Definitely not a winning strategy.
The Mossadegh affair was mostly a British doing with a healthy dose of Iranian internal infighting. The CIA involvement was an example of ineptitude that persists to this day. Certainly nothing to warrant the attack on our Embassy.
However, Eisenhower favored the idea; the lesson being, never elect a General as your president (Washington being the only exception so far).
A cop on every corner - in a perfect world - would work. But should the U.S. be the cops?
As for the Mossedegh affair not warranting the attack on the Embassy - are you familiar with the atrocities committed by the Shah against Iranians that dared to protest against the dictator?
Don't blame the British - the CIA had enough to do with it. At what point does the U.S. take responsibility for its actions? Failing to accept accountability is a losing tactic.
If not us, who? The U.N.?
The CIA was mislead by British sources claiming Mossadegh was turning Communist. And Dulles took the bait. Still, I maintain the CIA role was secondary to internal infighting.
But, Wil, given that the Shah committed atrocities against his people, do you agree his ouster was justified?
Commenting by HaloScan
