Do You Want Iran to Look Like Iraq?
(cross-posted at firedoglake)
 |
Iraq has been a disaster. The Iraq war a failure. But you haven't
seen anything until George W. Bush, Dick
Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are set loose on Iran.
Bush went into Iraq with too few troops, followed by such incompetence
and ineptitude in implementing the peace that Iraq is now in civil war. Just
ask the retired generals, including General
Clark. At every turn, Bush and Rumsfeld's lack of leadership and lack of
vision in Iraq has brought us closer to the brink. When Rumsfeld said, “stuff
happens,” we should have been warned that the worst was yet to come.
Now imagine Rumsfeld's “stuff happens” attitude and
George W. Bush's Iraq and Katrina-style bumbling in Iran.
President Bush said Tuesday that "all options
are on the table" to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons, but
said he will continue to focus on the international diplomatic option to persuade
Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions."We want to solve this issue diplomatically and
we're working hard to do so," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden.
(snip)
As Mr. Bush spoke, diplomats from six countries converged
in Moscow to map out the next step toward solving the Iranian nuclear standoff.
The United States and Britain say that if Iran does not comply with the U.N.
Security Council's April 28 deadline to stop uranium enrichment, they will
seek a resolution that would make the demand compulsory but Russia and China
remain wary of sanctions.
After Iraq, why should we trust Bush and his administration on Iran?
Bush's talk about working “diplomatically” to solve the crisis is
not credible. He mimicked the diplomatic posture before the Iraq war, which
we all now know was all show. Bush's inability to produce any national security
policy that uses muscular diplomacy is now part of his record. So is Iraq.
Now just imagine Bush and Rumsfeld's brand of incompetence, weakness
and policy secrecy put to the test in Iran. A country that is four times larger
than Iraq, with huge military capabilities, as well as a population with a long
history of nationalism, not to mention a lethal terrorist group, Hezbollah,
inside Iran, with more organizational power and outreach than al Qaeda.
Now, putting all that aside for a second, though I admit it's
hard to do, what is Bush and Rumsfeld's plan for Iran? What is the plan for
after we strike? Are we preparing in Iraq for what a potential strike
against Iran will bring inside that country, already in civil war? Then there's
the bottom line question that worries us all.
Does the United States have a war plan
for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons?Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that
his administration has been working on contingency plans for war — particularly
talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran —
as "wild speculation." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed
in, calling it "fantasyland." He declared to reporters that "it
just isn't useful" to talk about contingency planning.But the secretary is wrong.
It's important to talk about war planning that's real.
And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of
war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale
war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term,"
was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation
of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian
Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command
to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons
of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan
for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources
confirm now exists in draft form.None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S.
military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on The
Washington Post Web site, the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that "we
don't discuss war plans." But it should.The
Pentagon Preps for Iran, by William M. Arkin
Arkin continues today in a post about Rumsfeld's “crazed
flexibility” on Iran, which is part of the philosophy that got us into
such a mess in Iraq. Not enough troops, no one to implement the peace, ignoring
the plans put forth to secure the peace, the list is endless. Quick footed military
teams that are adaptive, is Rumsfeld's idea of the modern U.S. fighting force.
Special Forces teams are essential, but didn't we learn in Iraq that throwing
away detailed analysis and war planning is deadly?
The Iraq war has been a failure.
Now imagine Bush, Dick Cheney, Rummy and the entire Bush team turned loose
on Iran. It
simply cannot happen.
Look what has happened in Iraq. Why on earth should we trust George W. Bush
in Iran?
Comments are closed.