Friday, August 14, 2009

Iran: A military solution

I'm not the only one who thinks that if it comes to a showdown over Iran developing a nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver the devices that a military solution is possible.

Of course it would be in Israel's best interests to take down any bomb producing facility inside Iran before the weapons became operational.

But, Gen. Chuck Wild (USAF four star retired), a very knowledgable man on this issue, says that the the U.S. has a military option that would pose no strain on our presently deployed troops.

He made a three point argument in a recent Wall Street Journal op ed piece.

--Going public that we were seriously preparing for a military strike (even though we weren't) could make Tehran rethink the cost of developing nuclear weapons.

--The next step would be to blockade Iranian ports which would effectively cut nearly one-third of its gasoline needs. The political leadership is already under enormous pressure from its citizens, and the kinds of economic dislocations that such a blockade would produce could be destabilizing.

--If all that didn't work, and if the diplomatic wrangling failed, Gen. Wild maintains that the U.S. could launch a devastating attack on Iran's nuclear and military facilities. This would only involve Air Force and Navy air assets that are not heavily strained in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The general concludes his argument that " . . .the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing."


  1. I think that General Wild's solutions are good reasons why we have politicans making war decisions rather than generals -- as bad as those decision are. I think the general is forgetting we took out Saddam and the Taliban both in hours? days? and have been stuck fighting them for years -- the fact he is not suggesting we follow up with a land war in Iran doesn't make them any less dangerous than Iraq and Afgh. To the contrary, you attack Iran and the "war" is not going away -- it's going to come home to roost here.

  2. Junius. No one, leastways not me nor the General is suggesting a ground war in Iran. Merely a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

  3. Well, I must argue against Junius's comment here. "Protective strikes" do not necessarily result in a ground war but are the result of political haggling following "surgical strikes." The problem is that once a "strike" is made, then, for some reasons, the politicians all want to horn in on the defensive posture of the country. And, I'm not certain the war will "come home to roost here." I think if any "roosting" is done, it will be done by the malcontents who would argue that the U.S. should not be (how did the hippies put it during the Vietnam protests? Killing people senselessly?) involved in a war. Well, I was thinking about this just the other day---the protests, etc. in which people are suggesting that the government is comprised of "murderers"---and thought about how wars have determined the fate and future (and survival?) of our own country. America was forced to fight the Revolutionary War which resulted in the deaths of many, the Civil War, which resulted int he deaths of many, World War I and II for protection of our allies and treaty obligations which, if one studies our history close enough, was even the reason for the Vietnam War thanks to the SEATO treaty. War will never go away. I'm not a "warnik" but pragmatic enough to realize that all the protests in the world will not result in the abolishment of war and the need for other countries to (unfortunately) come to the aid of others. Sad. BUT the generals, I think, could end the war or threat of war far faster than politicians. From our past history, I would say that the reason war has always been drawn out and extended is not due to the generals who, I believe, would want to end the war as quickly as possible, but by politicians who are more concerned with dotting i's and crossing t's than taking into regard the quick necessity of stopping the war. Soldiers want to end was quickly, not draw them out, because they realize the enormity of the loss of human lives if the war is allowed to continue. Get in, win it quickly, then get out. We saw this during the Vietnam War when our Congress was split between the "doves" and the "hawks" who were meddling in the reality of war for political reasons instead of backing off and allowing the war to be settled quickly. As far as war coming home, well, the only wars fought on American soil have been wars for the preservation of the country or the establishment of the country.

  4. It is certainly possible to strike a hard target with hardly any boots on the ground. Osirak taught us that. I dont see anything like that happening during this administration though. Especially given the blowback that would certainly follow. After all we got our Nobel prize because we dont do things unilaterally anymore.

    -Doug S.