If we bomb Iran, we had better embark on this venture with the intent of making the rubble bounce. As the old military adage goes, “More rumble, less trouble.”
In an article earlier this month, Lt. Col Ralph Peters, the well-known military commentator and indiscriminate religion-basher, is sanguine about the August 15th designation by the Bush Administration formally labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a component of the Iranian armed forces, as a terrorist organization. Col. Peters reasons that such a diplomatic action by Bush & Company was a legal necessity before attacking this terrorist organization and that it signals the beginning of selectively bombing IRGC installations. Whether President Bush has the courage to bomb IRGC bases is a matter of conjecture that will be answered sooner or later (probably later if it happens at all). But here is where we part company with Peters (on this particular point because we have long ago condemned his well-publicized attack on all religions as the cause of war and his failure to properly discriminate between the Judeo-Christian West and the murderous political ideology of Shari’a-based Islam) and do not share his optimism.
If Bush starts playing "tit-for-tat" bombing with the mullahs, he will have taken the first step on the dubious road that Lyndon Johnson took when he started bombing North Vietnam in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 and later in retaliation for the VC attack on Pleiku in February 1965 that killed 8 GIs. This VC mortaring of Pleiku was the impetus for the launch of US FLAMING DART air attacks. FLAMING DART air attacks then grew into ROLLING THUNDER air attacks. The objective of these air campaigns was to demonstrate to the North Vietnamese we were serious, so they had better scale back their war of aggression against South Vietnam (which would be the same objective with respect to Iraq in bombing IRGC bases).
The fallacy of FLAMING DART and ROLLING THUNDER was that the targets were always restricted. In other words, Johnson limited the attacks to targets that might hurt North Vietnam (think IRGC bases in Iran’s case), but would not target the military incapacitation of Hanoi to end the war. Rather than a strategic offensive (or total war), which would have included the bombing of the Red River dikes, Hanoi logistic depots, railroads coming out of China, fighter airfields, SAM sites while they were being constructed, and the Haiphong harbor docks, the Johnson administration chose a defensive strategy of limited war based on selective, restrictive bombing to send diplomatic messages.
If Bush embarks on a bombing campaign of Iran that is based on the restrictive "gradualism" to send his own version of the Vietnam-era diplomatic message, patriotic (AKA “right-wing”) Americans will be happy after the initial attacks, but when Iran then escalates its attacks against the US in retaliation, the appeasers (AKA “left-wing”) Americans will say: "You see, bombing never works; it only encourages Jihad and makes matters worse."
And in a sense, they will be correct, unless, that is, we bomb to completely destroy Iran's capability to make Jihadi war against us. Restricted and gradual "tit-for-tat" bombing will have the same result that it had in Vietnam: Iran will understand our self-imposed limited war approach and ratchet up the ante knowing our domestic limitations. And, almost as if in concert, the anti-war appeasement movement will immediately scream: "This bombing is inhumane! Disproportionate!" Never mind the inhumanity in what Ahmadinejad promises for the US and Israel and in what Ahmadinejad has already accomplished, killing hundreds of GIs with IFPs/IEDs in Iraq while successfully fueling the violence of the Shia militias, further confounding the efforts for an Iraqi political resolution.
And it is this call of “inhumanity,” or put affirmatively, the demand for universal “human rights,” that effectively ends war for the West. The Islam of the Jihadists of course recognizes no such “humanity” except as it serves Allah’s will as expressed in his perfect (perfectly murderous) law known as Shari’a. But if those of us in the West, especially the US, cannot recognize that OUR humanity is more important than our enemies’, on what basis can we war? How can we ever justify the violence inherent in war?
This is of course how the world’s media and the cry of the International Elite captured Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in a vice-like grip of effeminacy in the Lebanon war of the Summer of 2006. Every Lebanese death was immediately measured against an Israeli fatality and after a quick comparative analysis found “disproportionate.” Olmert bought the scientific equation hook, line, and sinker. His own citizens were, at best, granted the “human rights” of all citizens of the world, including the enemy’s. One Israeli citizen = one Lebanese citizen. The war was doomed from the start. The Jihadists of Hezbollah and around the world fully understand this crisis in national existence which is fast degrading national existence in the West.
In other words, we can no longer defend our national sovereignty because “human rights” trump the “discrimination” inherent in defining one’s nation (or put more properly, existing) as a people with a distinct border, culture, and moral duty to protect one’s own. Without “discrimination” the moral duty of self-preservation, which is quite obvious existential if not ontological, will crumble against the collective weight of the “rights” of the others around the world who would make a claim on what is not theirs.
Returning to the US and the battle for Iraq, naturally the Democrat (and lesser but still effective Republican) surrender caucus will use the inhumanity of it all with the ineffectiveness of the bombing to stop Iranian aggression to sow the seeds of despair and defeat. The war will once again be blamed in largest part on “US aggression and the violation of human rights.” Polls will be taken. Soccer moms consulted. Then we will lose (again).
Doesn't anyone in Washington learn from the past?
If we bomb Iran, and indeed we should, we had better embark on this venture with the intent of making the rubble bounce. As the old military adage goes, “More rumble, less trouble.”
"patriotic (AKA “right-wing”) … the appeasers (AKA “left-wing”) "
Come on David. You know better than that. That is the kind of simplistic formulation I have come to expect from Phil.
"naturally the Democrat (and lesser but still effective Republican) surrender caucus"
Again, that is not thoughtful analysis. That is talk radio territory.
Do you think principled non-intervention equals surrender?
David, we can, I think, finally agree that a “Tyranny of Rights” is subverting our freedom. This is what I said in my article Free Speech, the War on Terror, and Islam (www.freeomvrights.com), back in 2004:
“And we have already had a foretaste of the savagery to which our enemies are willing to descend in pursuit of their objectives. They do not operate under rules of war prescribed by man. Instruments such as the Geneva Conventions simply have no application in their conduct of war. Acts of "perfidy" (such as feigning intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender; feigning incapacitation by wounds; feigning civilian or non-combatant status), and denial of "quarter" (not taking prisoners), are not seen as war crimes. Rather, they are seen as opportunities for deception and, as Mohammed said, "war is deception".
"Islamic rules of war are prescribed by a ‘higher authority’, and following those rules is rewarded in "heaven". Surah [chapter] 5, verse 36 of the Koran sets out the basic rules of engagement: "The punishment of those who wage war against God And His Apostles, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution [beheading under Islamic law], or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, Or exile from the land: That is their disgrace In this world, and A heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." Verse 36 makes clear that execution (crucifixion) and mutilation are visited upon prisoners: "Except for those who repent Before they fall Into your power." [my emphasis]
"Muslims are also exhorted to fight with their goods and persons in God's cause: "Go ye forth, (whether equipped) Lightly or heavily, and strive And struggle, with your goods And your persons, in the Cause of God. That is best For you, if ye (but) knew it." Anyone refuting that such verses do not call for, and justify, suicide attacks are simply indulging in linguistic gymnastics. They delude themselves.
"The chasm between western 'civilization', even under its present 'ideology of tolerance', and Islamic 'civilization', is so enormous that it would be difficult to bridge even with the best on intentions on both sides. But when we compound the problem by deluding ourselves as to the basic issues, and prohibiting debate on those issues, the chasm widens. Add to that Islamic response to criticism (execution), and the chasm becomes unbridgeable. History teaches us that such differences in values and culture are only resolved by armed conflict. And we in the West had better prepare ourselves for conflict in which our notions of "humanity and fair play" have no application.”
For those who feel squeamish about defending ourselves with minimal, or preferably, no casualties, I suggest they stand up and volunteer themselves, or some member of their family, as the sacrificial lamb, before knocking on my door.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Dan: not every essay I write is about conservatives of your liking. This essay is addressed to the class of "thinkers" about whom this graph is applicable:
"In other words, we can no longer defend our national sovereignty because “human rights” trump the “discrimination” inherent in defining one’s nation (or put more properly, existing) as a people with a distinct border, culture, and moral duty to protect one’s own. Without “discrimination” the moral duty of self-preservation, which is quite obvious existential if not ontological, will crumble against the collective weight of the “rights” of the others around the world who would make a claim on what is not theirs."
If the shoe doesn't fit, let it lie.
"If the shoe doesn’t fit, let it lie."
OK. Point taken.
David,
Your larger point is that we are essentially at war with Islam. Sunni, Shia, Arab, Persian, it makes no difference. If that's your point, I suggest that this attacking Iran in itself accomplishes little if anything. We can bomb Iran into rubble and we're still left with the rest of the Middle East. It's just a theroy, but I'd guess that if we were in a stiuation where we had combat forces in Afganistan, Iraq and we'd wiped Iran off the map, folks over there wouldn't be chanting "onward christian soldiers". If this is a clash of civilizations, then so be it. It's not a clash between the United States and Iran.
If it is a clash of civilizations, then I'd think Iran is not a logical starting point. Iran is isloated politically. Iran is
Persian and is comprised of Shia Muslims. I know Iran is the enemy of the week and I agree that Iran is supplying the Shia militas in Iraq. But, as potential threats in a global war on Islam, I'd bomb Pakistan and Saudi Arabia before Iran.
I know they are both our "allies", but in the Middle East, nobody is really an ally if we accept the totality of this war. Iran was a U.S. ally for a long time. Hell, Saddam was esssentally an ally one time. Pakistan has nukes and Saudi Arabia is the most duplicidous nation on the face of the earth. Let's start our bombing campaign there.
Oh, and we'll need an army. A big army. So, we'll need to reinstitute the draft. That will be a telling day. I'd love to see a draft vote in the congress. We'll get to see how many of those "patriotic republicans" vote to reinstitute a draft if it means their asses would be voted out of office in the next election.
Of course, I could just be cynical. I know folks say there are "politicans of principle" (republicans) and appeasers (democrats). I'd LOVE to see a draft vote to verify that notion. I think politicians are politicians. But, that probably puts me in the "non-thinking" category.
Greg in NY
Greg:
You need not hyperventilate. Take it one step at a time. If you read through Col. Snodgrass' now quite in-depth analysis of war and SANE's War Manifesto and SANE Immigration Proposal, you will see that we have clearly identified the enemy: Shari'a based Islam.
We have also carefully spelled out what it is we would do to defend ourselves against the Jihad now being waged in the name and under the long-standing (1000 years) authority of Shari'a:
"…we need not target all or even any substantial number of the world’s Muslims. Instead, we target their leadership, their command-and-control centers, and their infrastructure. Will many of them be killed in the war? Of course, and it is intended to be so. Otherwise we can never expect to be victorious. Muslims will certainly never abandon historical and traditional Shari’a easily. But given sustained and determined separate-quarantine-search-and-destroy operations, Muslims will have the choice: either reform your own societies or forever be rebuilding them while burying your dead." From: http://www.saneworks.us/War-Manifesto-The-War-Against-Islam-article-343-1.htm.
Now, this means, as Col Snodgrass has laid out in military terms, you prioritize your targets and then you cripple and decapitate your enemy. This does not require huge numbers of boots on the ground.
And it also means you pick your fights when and where you are prepared to do so.
By the by, we have never made any sustained argument that the Iraq War was the right theater at the right time. But once there, it should have been fought as war; not stopped in mid-stream to build a democracy on an ideological foundation.
Greg, part 2:
The second part of your argument is that because Congress, and by extension, Americans generally, are no longer prepared for war, we ought to abandon the notion. Fine. Now, go convince our enemies of the same and we’ll be fine.
All arguments of the type you proffer can be won in the modern era by simply arguing that war is a practical impossibility “due to the political realities”. There are of course two problems with that argument. One, it is not factually true given how Americans appear to react to being attacked and threatened with future attacks. Case in point: Afghanistan; Case in point: Iraq. While the anti-war crowd likes to argue that Bush Lied and deceived America into starting up with Iraq, the fact is that Bush made the same claim about wmd and the threat posed by Hussein as the previous administrations and all of the world’s intelligence agencies. The ONLY real debate at the time was over whether we could contain him without war. That was a legitimate debate. Congress thought not and effectively declared war by authorizing it. Had Bush prosecuted that war as war until the end, or simply brought down Hussein, destroyed all military-weapons sites, then told the Baathists “it’s yours to pick up the pieces; threaten the region or the West with WMD again, and we will be back”, and then left but remained in striking distance to in fact return if there were a new threat developing, Iraq would be a different place today.
In other words, it is not true that Americans are feckless or hopelessly isolationist.
Two, if you are going to take the tack that war is impossible because Congress is not prepared to legislate to build a real fighting army, and if we ignore the evidence of America’s history where it has proven its bona fides in war (i.e., WWII) — and we might very well agree that America today is not what it was 60-70 years ago — then you have simply quit.
Now, you might argue in Buchanan-speak that all we need to do is fight off actual attacks on our Homeland. We need not fight preventive wars or even wars of pursuit. Thus Buchanan makes an argument against WWII, both the European and Pacific theatres. But I have pointed out on many occasions in these comment threads how silly this notion is. First, even before WMD, our founding fathers and our political leadership throughout our history have understood that war was essential for national existence. Based upon the Buchanan view of war, we would never have ventured outside of Plymouth Rock. Do you believe the American Indians were a threat to the early settlers before the settlers began occupying their lands like those dastardly Jews who showed up in the Middle East to take Arab lands from the practitioners of the noble and peaceful religion? (On more than one occasion I have listed all of the US military actions and have asked Dan Phillips and others who share his view to identify the GOOD wars and to provide a theoretical basis for that judgment. I’ve yet to see a serious response.)
Second, with the proliferation of WMD, head-in-sand isolationism is an anachronism. If you don’t understand that, the discussion is effectively over.
David:
"While the anti-war crowd likes to argue that Bush Lied and deceived America into starting up with Iraq, the fact is that Bush made the same claim about wmd and the threat posed by Hussein as the previous administrations and all of the world’s intelligence agencies. The ONLY real debate at the time was over whether we could contain him without war. "
And the ONLY reason there was a debate at all was the occupant of the Oval Office. Had it been Clinton or Gore and all other things equal, there never would have been a debate.