The Right Way With Iran

Recently there has been a lot of talk about bombing Iran, in particular, a column by Mark Steyn which calls for the area bombing of the country, with no occupation (which essentially also means no ground forces.) Steyn's argument is bloodthirsty claptrap, but the discussion on Iran is now fairly well advanced so it's time for people to decide where they are on this.

After 9/11 I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, for obvious reasons. In fact, I supported some kind of intervention earlier, when they started blowing up the Buddhas. I opposed the invasion of Iraq, as indeed I had opposed the march to Baghdad in 1991: there were a number of obvious problems that would result. In fact, shortly before the invasion in 2003 I enumerated all the problems with the proposed invasion with a fellow veteran friend of mine, and indeed they have all come to pass. It's not as thought it was hard to see. In addition, I had been skeptical of this WMD talk since the mid-'90's, when it first became a major foreign policy issue. I was right about that, too. It gives me no pleasure. Over two thousand of our young men and women are dead, thousands maimed for life, and, not incidentally, a lot of Iraqis, too, and for what? For chasing a will o' the wisp of fear.

I see this same will o' the wisp with Iran. But in the case of Iran, I do think we should do something. However, I don't think bombing will do the trick. First, Steyn's indiscriminate bombing is deserving of no consideration. Second, it won't work, either, since we can't bomb the entire country for long without precipitating an international crisis. All bombing will do will kill some people and perhaps destroy some facet of Iran's nuclear program, but even here we cannot be sure of redundancies that are almost certainly in the program. Bombing would buy us a little time, no more.

My concern is not just whether Iran gets a bomb. My concern is that they intend to dominate the Gulf and the oil. As an American, I cannot tolerate this. My country needs to dominate the oil. Otherwise, my country will suffer. Therefore, I would propose that we need to think seriously about a hot war with Iran, as well as invoking nuclear deterrence against both China and Russia.

To do this right the first thing we need to do is re-institute the draft. We have to increase the defense budget, increase the size of the armed forces, increase our potential pool of reserves. The counter-arguments are well known, about the need for training and expertise. They are irrelevant. The signs point to a future in which the United States will have to use its military might to control the Gulf Region. We do not have enough people to do that. We have to start preparing for that inevitability.

Critics will say that we cannot do that because the political climate is not primed. They want to believe that politics is like a video game, where, if we just drop enough of the right kind of bombs, we will win. In the case of Iran, that will not be so. We have to foresee a lengthy, difficult, campaign, that will probably cause many deaths, for the sake of preventing a nuclear armed hegemon from controlling the oil on which the rest of the world depends. This is not going to be achieved by pinpoint bombing (although we can try that, I suppose) nor by the callous brutality of area bombing, which will only inflame our opponents. We have to be prepared to invade, take over the country, and stay there. (One reason being, that an invasion of Iran will certainly destabilize Southern Iraq.)

In addition, America will not only have to get used to a draft but oil shortages, rationing of various goods, and all the other paraphernalia of a nation that takes war seriously. Anything less -- such as the current War on Terror -- communicates to the terrorists and jihadists that we are not in fact serious, and we think we can control serious threats by remote control, risking neither our lives nor even a rip to our trousers. We have to dispel that notion as well.

Need I add that we need a coalition as well. We should not be expected to go into this proposed conflict alone. Russia and China can be expected to oppose us. For that, we can make numerous tradeoffs and mutually assured threats.

I am not calling for an instant invasion of Iran. In the last analysis, it may not be necessary. But we should start getting ready, just in case. After all, we started the draft in World War Two almost a year before Pearl Harbor. We should prepare, and we should indicate that we are willing to fight, die, and sacrifice to defend our way of life. Prating about dropping superbombs on Iran indicates only that we are looking for quick fix to a serious geopolitical dilemma.

My call for mobilizing to a war footing has been mocked as unserious by some. I think it is inevitable. What we need is political and intellectual leadership to explain to the American people why preparation for such a war may be vital to our interest and our way of life.

If we continue bloviating about this or that bombing alternative we will accomplish nothing except to assure our enemies that we are weak ditherers who want an easy solution that doesn't muss our hair. If we actually simply carry out a limited (or even indiscriminate) bombing campaign to take out some aspect of Iran's nuclear technology, we run a fairly high risk of failure, and we will simply earn additional rage from our enemies, as well as cascading rage from the world's Muslim population. And, yes, the metrosexual fantasy of defeating Muslim fascism without breaking a carefully manicured fingernail is just that: a fantasy.

In the end, bombs here, bombs there: it's the way out of the cowardly, the lazy, and the ADD nation. If we really want a war, and win a war, let's get ready, and get serious. Our leadership is there to lead. They must lead. There are no quick fixes for problems of this magnitude. I am not looking forward to a war with Iran. I am not even sure we need to do it. But we should be getting ready, just in case.