The U.S. Military Will Not Go to War Against Iran For Bush

[leveymg]

Don't fight wars you can't win.

That's the bitter lesson of Vietnam, it was the mantra of the U.S. military until the Bush Administration took power and changed it to, "Attack first, plan later". The old doctrine was codified as the so-called Powell Doctrine, which is back in vogue at the Pentagon after its most recent demonstration in Iraq. The Powell doctrine basically says, don't commit U.S. forces unless you have overwhelming force, international support, and a domestic political consensus behind you. Most important of all, have a clear exit plan.

First time, in Desert Storm, it was proved valid. But, its absence in 2003 during the planning and implementation of Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted in the failure of the occupation, an operational quagmire, and the humiliation of the U.S. military. The most serious damage in their eyes is that the guerrilla resistance in Iraq has demonstrated to the world the true vulnerabilities of American forces, as well as the farcical incompetence of its present political leadership. President Bush's war in Iraq has made the U.S. less secure.

While they don't express it publicly, the professional military is enraged at the Bush Administration. After all, it's their lives that have been wasted in ever-greater numbers during the three years since the invasion. If the White House orders Iran attacked for no apparent reason better than partisan domestic politics, that would be taken as a grave abuse of command authority by the armed services, and would prove a fatal error for Bush-Cheney.

The lesson of Iraq For Iran

The reason the First Gulf War was won was because it had limited objectives: clear the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, and go home. You can't clear the Iraqis out of Iraq, however. Wars of occupation can't be won by military means. Occupations are political wars, and this one is lost for a thousand foreseeable reasons. Even less so, can we hope to fight a limited war with Iran or occupy that country. There is little or no chance the U.S. could force successful "regime change" in Tehran by bombing or invasion. It would weaken us further, while making the most radical elements of their leadership stronger.

So, the lesson of Vietnam and Iraq as widely understood by the uniformed military is this: don't go to war with Iran, unless you want to lose again.

The Generals and intelligence chiefs have understood that quite well since the Spring of 2004. U.S. national security is better served by regime change in Washington than in Tehran -- the former objective is also far more realizable.

The Bush Administration lost the war in Iraq on April 18, 2004. That was the day that the Abu Ghraib photos were released. The source of these documents was military intelligence. Shortly thereafter, the FBI raided the home of Lawrence Franklin, an Iran Desk Officer in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP), who had been swapping classified documents with Israeli intelligence. It was at this time, as well, that the Joint Chiefs and CIA told their Inspector General's to seek prosecution for Plamegate and the Franklin OSP-AIPAC spy cases. Call it a constitutional coup, if you will, but after taking those steps that have lead to the crippling of the Bush Administration, the brass clearly is not going to start another preemptive war with Iran for Dubya's sake.

"We won't be fooled again"

The Pentagon is opposed to waging a war in Iran, and won't do it. They would rather see Bush-Cheney removed.

In the internal debate over whether to go into Iraq, the chickenhawks -- Wolfowitz, Perle, and rest of the neocons -- won out last time because they had uncertainty on their side. It was unclear whether Hussein really had WMDs, what his intentions were, and how strong his grip on power really was. One need only go back and read the accounts from that very different era before the March, 2003 invasion to see how the arguments lined up, and how very right the dissenting Generals were.

As The Who put it, "We won't be fooled again."

This time, there is no question about Iran. They have a credible theater deterrent in their intermediate range missiles tipped with CBW warheads and cruise missiles. When the first bunker-buster drops on an Iranian nuclear installation, they are perfectly willing to launch them all against American forces, shipping in the Straights of Hormuz, and Israel. It is the Israeli response the U.S. military fears the most. We know exactly how Israel will react, because they have announced it -- the Israeli Air Force and Navy will nuke Iranian cities. That will set off the regional Middle-East war and global oil crisis that every sane person fears and no one believes really serves U.S. national interests.

So, U.S. national security is dependent on prevention, rather than preemption, of war with Iran. The brass understand this, the CIA understands this, and so should it also be starkly apparent to the President's remaining policy circle that the much-weakened White House has few options regarding Iran.

There's a splendid psyops campaign going on right now. It serves to keep Iran off-balance while we withdraw from Iraq. It perhaps slows the development of the Iranian bomb. It is a splendid face-saving measure for Bush-Cheney. It is a political godsend to Karl Rove. But, in the end, Iran will get its new western province and its nuclear deterrent. Nothing in the world can stop that short of a World War. The Generals aren't going to fight such a war in which the U.S. has no reasonable chance of military or political victory. The brass aren't going for it.

###

2006. Mark G. Levey

[RazzleDazzle]

1. One thing wrong with your otherwise terrific piece

and it's a big thing, at least for me.

You SOUND like you have inside information. But understandably, perhaps, you can't reveal what that is or give us any info about it -- or if you can, by all means please DO, and at the earliest possible moment. Because otherwise it sounds like speculation and wishful thinking, and I don't mean thatto sound insulting.

[Marnieworld]

2. That was my thought too

I skimmed and scrolled looking for a link once I started liking what I was reading. I need some source or it's just wishful, albeit probable, thinking.

[leveymg]

4. I believe it reflects the thinking of most ranking military and

intelligence officers.

I am not privvy to their private thoughts, but this is the gist of they have said to me, and what I have seen written by retired officers. I read widely.

[bananas]

9. So what are they going to do?

The plans have already been prepared.
Bush says go - what are the top brass going to do?
Disobey orders? Not likely.
Resign? Maybe - then someone who will follow orders is put in place.
It doesn't matter what the top brass thinks.

[Just Me]

23. But, everyone "in the rank" are appointees totally loyal to PNACers.

The executive is run by PNACer Cheney. The Pentagon is run by PNACer Rummy. The State is run by Leeza.

Those "in the rank" are completely loyal, true believers, and they are going to do what they're told.

Personally, I don't believe war against Iran will be stopped unless the administration is dismantled somehow.

[LeaveIraqNow]

3. Be careful what you wish for.

If the troops wont fight the war they might just nuke Iran instead.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. The Brass will do as they're told. As they always have.

The brass in the military have got into their places by kissing asses and covering their own. Endowong the military bigshots with anything other than what you find in corporate America is naive, to say the least.

They aren't about to risk their careers or their future seats in the "defense" industry by saying "no" to the Boob-in-Chief. They'll do exactly what they're told to do, then blame the "civilians" when they screw it up.

[leveymg]

8. The Pentagon is a political institution in the U.S. They aren't co-equal,

but they set policy over their own area of expertise, which is designing and fighting wars. The top brass have been known to defy the President, when they want to, and to involve themselves in efforts to overthrow Administrations they don't like.

An example of the former is General MacArthur's conduct of the Korean War, for which he was eventually fired by Truman. Truman paid a significant political penalty. The most dramatic instance of the latter case in modern American history is Admiral Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Nixon, who had military officers spying within the NSC against Henry Kissinger. In 1972, Moorer agreed with CIA Director Helms and FBI Director Hoover to bring down Richard Nixon. All had different reasons for wanting to be rid of Nixon. The Watergate breakin followed. See, Silent Coup: The Removal of a President by Len Colodny,Robert Gettlin.

[Skelington]

14. It's not the decision, or choice of the men and women in uniform,

to go to war or not. The military is charged with the duty to acomplish the POLITICALLY set agenda. Your insulting, and obviously naive attempt to discredit military leadership makes me wonder if you have any idea at all what it means to serve? The generals of today were there for Clinton, and a lot of them were there for daddy Bush. They did not just appear as if from nowhere when bush was elected.

I personally do not think General Wesley Clark, (in your opnion) is an ass-kissing military bigshot. You have no idea how much a comment like that hurts, I re-live the the death of every friend I lost in 23 proud years USMC, every day. You will never understand what you just said.

Your comment sucks.

Semper Fi

[leveymg]

18. You totally misread the article. I'm saying the Generals have already

taken action to initiate the removal of Bush-Cheney, or at least agreed with the CIA to do so, and that was a political decision made in order to protect U.S. national security.

I don't know what your rank or role within the Marine Corps was, but at the Pentagon general officer and staff level, and in the intelligence services, the calculus is always political. The objective is to accomplish the mission of advancing U.S. interests and, ultimately, to uphold the oath everyone takes to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. That trumps all orders that might be received from the civilian command authority. The oath isn't to keep any particular Administration in power by waging aggressive, illegal wars that can't be won.

I never said anyone is an "ass kissing military bigshot", partularly General Clark. Quite the opposite, I'm recognizing that serving military recognize a duty to the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. people that might require them to disobey orders or take extraordinary measures in order to uphold that duty.

Your insulting comment is not well-founded.

[sweetheart]

29. they have failed to do that

"the oath everyone takes to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies."
They have stood by idly whilst an executive went AWOL and rode roughshod over the constitution.
Whatever protectors they claim to be, they must be protecting the physical document, that
explains it. The document is secure, whilst the republic is corrupted beyond pale.

[annabanana]

43. (he was responding to post #5). . . .n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Oh, really? Semper fi my ass, lifer.

USMC '61-'65.

[Iowa]

32. Skelington, it appears you have hitched your wagon to your leaders...

That's a big mistake, IMHO. Am I reading your post correctly?

"Your insulting, and obviously naive attempt to discredit military leadership..."

"I personally do not think General Wesley Clark, (in your opnion) is an ass-kissing military bigshot. You have no idea how much a comment like that hurts..."

Here's how I look at it: Most of the "leaders" I worked for were self-important, butt-kissing, self-serving, lightweight, ass-wipes who didn't know the meaning of loyalty. And you know what else? It feels good to say it.

I can't imagine what life would be like if it plunged me into a depression every time someone maligned my bosses (and I DON'T think Mark did that in his posts). Hell, that was one of the good things about the job! In fact, I generally didn't really trust co-workers who couldn't or wouldn't see through their bullshit (and most who were viewed by their peers to be among the most competent professionals felt likewise).

If anyone wants to rip my "leaders", have at it. Make my day. It won't hurt me one damned bit and I'll probably buy you a beer.

Am I missing something?:shrug:

[tomp]

34. every military personnel has the obligation...

...and the right to refuse an illegal order. what constitutes an illegal order??? and what price to pay for following vs. not following and illegal order???

was the command to attack iraq a legal order? don't think so.

can an illegal *resident give a legal order? don't think so.

just some food for thought.

as far as the op goes, i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the cavalry to come to the rescue. this is the u.s. imperialist war machine we're talking about here.

[Bloody John Flynt]

37. The Oath of Enlistment

that we swear to and promise to uphold says that "we will support and defend the constitution and obey the orders of all those appointed over me". Unfortunately bush is the Commander in Chief, he is appointed over me. The unlawful order that keeps coming up is a very hazy excuse for a coup or to just not fight. The military cannot and should not get involved in government. Then we would have the very police state we are trying to prevent. I have been serving for almost 20 years now in the military intelligence field and I have never nor will I ever shirk my duty because I think a president I don't agree with is going down the wrong path. If the military started doing that, no president would be safe. No, the way to fight back is to get control of congress in November and make them do their job. There is no doubt bush should be impeached, but expecting the military to remove him would dishonor the service men and women who have shed blood to build the democracy that we do have. I understand where your coming from, but expecting the military to do what the American people should be doing sets a very bad precedence.

[newyawker99]

38. Hi Rubired!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bloody John Flynt]

41. Thank You!! Great website!

[annabanana]

44. excellent post

and an important distinction.
The military is an instrument to be wielded by the people through their representatives. If the people don't do their job, the representatives won't represent, and the military will be misused.

[Marr]

6. Frankly, I don't want military brass making these decisions.

Even if they agree with me. That's not their job. Their job is to carry out the orders of our civilian government.

If you're talking about widespread undermining of the Bush Administration's push for war with Iran, such as intelligence officers leaking memos and exposing the fraud ahead of time- that's great. But any overt refusal to follow orders from the military brass would set a horrible and damaging precendent.

If they're that opposed to the policy, let them resign their posts and make their reasons known, publicly.

[bobbieinok]

40. AMEN----in US civilians are supposed to control the military

[i miss america]

7. I sure hope you're right.

I for one would welcome and support their mutiny.

[Oneliest]

11. Generals are a different breed today

The pool of General Officers simply dont have the big personalities, and oversized egos that allowed some of our more famous generals from the WWWII era to do some rather audacious things. Our modern generals are more akin to politicians or CEOs of mid to large size companies.

Anything that smacks of a junta seems dangerous.

[newyawker99]

39. Hi Oneliest!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mzmolly]

10. This is based upon the presumption that we have a rational government.

One that cares about "we the people."

Thanks for the positive observation, however.

[Lerkfish]

12. agreed. I presumes that there is a sane logic to how govt. works these day

..these days, and I'm well beyond thinking there is any sanity or logic to any of it.

[UpInArms]

13. I can only hope that today's Generals are familiar with Smedley Butler

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War I a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

...more...

[David Zephyr]

15. Kicking & Recommending.

Mark, you have written what I believe to be the very core of the situation in Iraq and with Iran. It is an excellent document that you have prepared and I believe that you know what you are talking about.

I wrote here at the DU on the day after the last national election that the real winner was Iran because they will wind up with a huge piece of Iraq. My piece got little attention, but it is the reality of the situation.

The great irony of this stupid war is that Iran gains everything and it was George Bush's father and Reagan who had propped up Saddam Hussein to prevent Iran and its Shi'a proxies in Iraq from expanding their influence.

I have also posted ad infinitum that the U.S. will not invade Iran, too. It won't happen. Bush would love to do so, no doubt, but it won't happen.

I hope that you will continue to write here at the DU.

:thumbsup:

[leveymg]

20. Thank you, David.

I know that my assessment may be a minority opinion at this point. I have lived and worked in the Washington, DC area for a many years, and have met and come to know many military and intelligence officers.

I find most of them to be intelligent, decent, conscientious people who are well-aware of the larger moral and political issues facing the country. I have confidence that they will do the right thing in a crisis.

In the last couple of years, the subject of Bush's Iran and Iraq policies almost always causes a pained look on their faces, and from those who are retired, comments that would seem familiar here at DU.

[David Zephyr]

24. I believe you.

Keep writing!

[buddysmellgood]

26. I find this strangely comforting. It's not something I like to hear, but

as I watch the neocons march toward facism, I've wondered how far they would go. Would they go so far as to postpone eletections based on some cooked up scare or attack? Would they enforce martial law based upon that? My thought has always been that as bad as it gets, the military will never back such moves and so it cannot happen.
Basically what you are describing is the military as another branch of government.

[catmandu57]

16. I worry about the air force

following this fool into the gates of hell. The army, marines, and to a certain extent the navy may have very strong reservations about this.
The air force may have a feeling of invincibility, they've been top dog for a long time, while the ground forces have been getting chewed up, these guys are ready to go.
The navy is in a bad position sitting in brown water without the room to maneuver, it makes me fear that using this reason they'll start throwing nukes.

[havocmom]

45. And there has been some trouble with fundy pressure in the AF Academy

which is something of a red flag to some of us who hold the Constitution dear.

[formercia]

17. But then again, we must protect the 'American Empire'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2518710&mesg_id=2518710

[leveymg]

21. The price of oil already tracks the Euro. The bourse may exaserbate

trends, but it won't be a fundamental change in the way the world does business, and it won't lead to immediate devaluation. The Dollar and Euro are freely convertible in many markets. Whatever hit the value of the Dollar may be expected to take has already been factored into the exchange rate in other markets.

So, I don't believe we're going to bomb Iran to prevent the opening of its oil bourse. In fact, one of the the worst things we could do for the value of the Dollar is to get into a war with a major adversary leading to a curtailment of oil flows through the Straights.

[formercia]

35. Traders won't be able to manipulate oil futures.

A lot of wealthy people made their fortune by manipulating the price of futures. It's going to be difficult when a lot of business moves to Iran.

[coalition_unwilling]

19. "The Bush Administration lost the war in Iraq on April 18, 2004"???

I actually think it was lost much earlier during the initial invasion, when U.S. advance forces encountered the so-called "fedayeen" in Nasariyeh. This fedayeen (irregulars) constituted the nucleus of the anti-imperialist resistance and they inflicted some serious damage on U.S. Marines.

The Nasariyeh "Sniper Alley" combat should have been seen as a portent of things to come by policy-makers. Instead, the "cakewalk" crowd deduced from the absence of most other organized resistance that the mission was accomplished. As Seymour Hersh and others have documented, this was wishful thinking; we won the campaign we wanted to win, i.e., advancing to Baghdad. But the structure of the Iraqi resistance was put in place by Saddam a year before the invasion (dispersion of munitions, cell-like resistance structures), after his secret peace entreaties to the Bush administration were rebuffed. Hussein concluded as early as January, 2002, following this rebuff, that he would be invaded and instructed his general staff to start studying the Vietnam War.

[Disturbed]

25. Top Bush Regime members will be destroyed by...

covert means if the Bush Regime tries to go forth with bombing Iran. America is ruled by Multi-Natls. The Oligarchy will not allow another Great Depression of America which an attack of Iran will cause. The Bush Regime has pushed America to the limit and will now be nuetered.

[Raksha]

27. I believe you know what you're talking about

and it's what I've been waiting to hear. It's the one thing that gives me any hope at all for the future of our democracy, i.e. that at some point, our military will remember that their oath to defend the Constitution trumps all other loyalties, and that they will refuse to indulge the neocons' world domination fantasies.

I pray that with whatever residual sanity Bush has left (if any), he has brains enough not to push the situation to the crisis point.

[Neil Lisst]

28. But Bush can provoke war with Iran by launching airstrikes

The Pentagon is NOT going to refuse orders to take out locations in Iran under presidential orders to do so.

[AbsoluteArmorer]

30. WORDS TO ADHERE TO

This time, there is no question about Iran. They have a credible theater deterrent in their intermediate range missiles tipped with CBW warheads and cruise missiles. When the first bunker-buster drops on an Iranian nuclear installation, they are perfectly willing to launch them all against American forces, shipping in the Straights of Hormuz, and Israel. It is the Israeli response the U.S. military fears the most. We know exactly how Israel will react, because they have announced it -- the Israeli Air Force and Navy will nuke Iranian cities. That will set off the regional Middle-East war and global oil crisis that every sane person fears and no one believes really serves U.S. national interests.

The statement above speaks volumes! Not only will the $$$ amount of such a war with Iran bankrupt America, but the cost of lives in a quagmire style guerrilla warfare that would last 10x longer than Iraq debacle will completely deplete our 'War Office' (National Defense). Without several FULL pledged allies to add 100,000s of their troops and $$$Billions of their monies with ours, we would face a disastrous defeat in Central Asia within a few years of any Iran Entanglement. The stoppage of oil from Iran would affect how the rest of Asia and Europe would allie with Iran and Russia. We're already on the brink of that oil crises now. Venezuela would also add to our woes.

[Robeysays]

31. ouch... that would suck

and i'm only 19, *coff* Draft *coff*


if that happens. i'm outta here and not even looking back.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

33. Ooops - too late guys - you voted for the idiot.....

I pity the ones who had some sense and didn't vote for him - but for the most part those nimrods voted for him in pretty large numbers....

[NNN0LHI]

36. Thats what I thought about Iraq too

I thought the people running the military had some common sense. I was proved wrong.

Don

[Hubert Flottz]

42. I know one of the four star generals and I know he's not a fool.

I have not heard a word from him through the media, or seen him once on TV, but I do think he is one of the cooler heads doing the thinking now! I do know that he commands probably at least a fourth of the Army right now and that a lot of his troopers have been fighting in Iraq.

If we can't control Iraq, what chance do we have against the combined forces of Russia, China and probably even North Korea, who would probably join the fight on the side of Iran, should the nukes ever start to fly? Russia and China, just last week, warned Bush about tangling with Iran. Now Pakistan has made a deal to buy nuclear materials from China, thanks to Bush's stupid deal with India. Those countries are starting to line up against the neocon game plan. Armageddon is in sight!

There are some camera loving ass kissers much like Powell and Myers, still at the Pentagon and some crazy officers like Boykin and Miller still around, but there are some generals who know how to figure the odds, still at work for us at the DoD. It's these smart officers, who I think were the people at DoD, who were working with Jack Murtha, to try and make the neocons face reality in the middle east.

Dictators have a bad habit of overruling their fighting generals and promoting the ass kissing political generals. Reality and what the boss wants to hear are usually two totally different things in real wars...