The John F. Kennedy Strategy Will Not Work for Bush
13 April 2006 10:22 am by Taylor Marsh
The John F. Kennedy Strategy Will Not Work for Bush –updated–
 |
Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with
Iran?Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives
from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.
Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have
been newly working on a number of “near term” and “near-year”
Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts.These studies, war games, and modeling efforts have
been the first step in shifting the bulk of planning from almost exclusive
focus on Iraq to Iran. At CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, at Army
and Air Force CENTCOM support headquarters in Georgia and South Carolina,
and at service analysis and operations research organizations like the Army
Concepts Analysis Agency in Bethesda, a monumental effort has been underway
to “build” an Iran country baseline for war planning.Under the TIRANNT campaign analysis program, Army organizations,
together with CENTCOM headquarters planners, have been examining both near
term and “out year” scenarios for war with Iran, covering all aspects
of a major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through
post-war “stability” operations after regime change.
I read Arkin on most days, with his blog listed in my Milblog
section on the right margin. He always has interesting information to dispense. But today's post is based on a wildly wrong assumption. George W. Bush is not John F. Kennedy, however, in the end, it might not matter. Crazy is the chip of the day.
Arkin is employing the Cuban Missile Crisis theory. It goes
something like this. During that crisis, the Soviets backed down from
President Kennedy's threat and blockade because they truly believed he was ready to go
to nuclear war. J.F.K. was not only ready to touch one off if he had to, regardless
of what would happen in Cuba, but also the consequences that would rattle through Germany simultaneously, which was always on Kennedy's mind. Kennedy
had the means, the might and the men to do it and the threat was real. He was ready to wage war, even nuclear war.
My brother was one of those Marines ready to blast into Cuba.
Then Krushchev blinked, changing history forever. I talk about this in my
political show, “Weeping
for J.F.K.”
The nuclear war threat is back, only the players have changed. We've seen a steady escalation since Bush and the Republicans came into power. Their incompetence and willingness to use national security for political means makes the situation even more dangerous.
However, Ahmadinejad is not going to blink. His ego is engaged, and with
Iraq in civil war, he feels he's got the upper hand, something Kruschev might
have thought after the Vienna Summit, but was clearly a premature assessment.
Likely due to the fact that when Kennedy went to that meeting he was in severe
back pain and weakened from health issues that had spiked as he arrived for
the summit. The premature evaluation and subsequent miscalculation cost Krushchev
the ball game.
What Arkin is saying today is that the United States does not
benefit by putting out the notion that a military strike on Iran is implausible
and can't be done. Arkin asks us to employ the J.F.K. Cuban Missile Crisis
strategy, without saying so, with the full message to Iran being that the
U.S. can and will strike at will, regardless of Iraq or anything else. We
are ready to wage war on a second front. Period. Only this will work on Iran.
As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe
that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically
don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed
out militarily against anyone.But the United States military is really, really
getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its
thinking.It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand
this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones,
but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called
“experts” are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that
there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will
just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong
about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.But most important, this constant drum beat in the
newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary
Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran,
and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would
be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against
the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add,
is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It
is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons,
to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism. (source)
However, the situation is quite different. First, as I've written before,
it is my humble belief that President Kennedy would never
have authorized preemption. Bear any burden was not about preemptively
invading countries that posed no threat to the U.S. in order to shuffle the
power structure in the Middle East. In fact, before Kennedy was even a senator
he stated that if we didn't get a handle on the Middle East, nationalism would
become a big threat to our country in the future. Kennedy also said that we
should export ideas and not arms to the world. Preemptive war in Iraq would
not have been his choice, leaving Iran the top spot to watch. This would also
have been my choice as well. It's always been about Iran for me.
Today, we do not have anything close to the situation Kennedy faced, because
of Bush's trigger happy action in Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel chimes in today.
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska,
said during a visit to Pakistan that military action was “not a viable,
feasible option”. “I do not expect any kind of military solution
on the Iran issue,” Hagel told a news conference at the U.S. embassy
in Islamabad, stressing that he was speaking for himself rather than the
Senate or the Bush administration. Hagel said President George W. Bush and
senior members of his cabinet had said the military option was not a responsible
approach to resolving the issues.“I think to further comment on it would be complete
speculation, but I would say that a military strike against Iran, a military
option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” he added. …
…… … “Iran is a complicated issue. I think
that a responsible approach to these challenges is to work closely with
our friends and allies, in this case Pakistan, with the United Nations,
with the IAEA,” he said, referring to the Internation Atomic Energy
Agency — the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.“I believe a political settlement will be the
answer. Not a military settlement. All these issues will require a political
settlement,” Hagel said. … …
Senator
doubts military option to be used on Iran (h/t Think
Progress)
Bill Arkin and others cannot put the Iraq genie back in the
bottle. It's the situation in Iraq that is driving opinion that we have no
military option on the table in Iran. So, whether he likes it or not, people
are going to keep talking anti strike, right up until the military launches
Bush's next mission, which just may be in Iran, which Arkin and Seymour Hersh lay out. Besides, Bush has already said he
believes he's the only person who can accomplish this strike, because no Democrat or Republican will do it. It's part of his holy mission in the Middle East, if you will.
George W. Bush is no John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy used
diplomacy and his strength of will and character, backed by evidence that
was irrefutable, to muscle Kruschev into collapsing. In contrast, George
W. Bush is going to use the crazy factor, matching President Ahmadinejad's
nut factor, then raising him a nuke. So, in the end Arkin needn't worry. With
Iran looking at Cowboy Bush, they know the nuclear threat is not only an option,
but in the planning, even as coolers heads and those advocating more thoughtful
foreign policy philosophy options doubt how wise it would be. Wise has nothing to do with it.
The problem for the rest of us is that neither Bush nor Rummy
nor Dick Cheney have any credibility whatsoever on national security, don't
care what the military think, or what the American people want. They've used
national security in elections before and they're about to do it again. All
they're doing is trading Iraq for Iran. Be very afraid of “mushroom clouds” and WMDs from Iran is next. Never mind that the Iranian threat is 5-10 years away.
UPDATE: Via LA Times (h/t) comes more bad news for Bush.
Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust President Bush to make the “right decision” on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
Doubts About Taking on Tehran
About half those polled support military action if Iran continues its nuclear activity but don't trust President Bush to make the call.
