« All Latveria Bows Before Me | Main

February 10, 2007

Considering Consequences

Let us imagine, for a moment, that it is summer 1944. Allied armies are rolling across France towards the Low Countries and the German border. Assume also that we are in charge of determining the Allied response to a surprise twist in the war: Spain is providing support to the Axis powers. They have not entered the war, but they are shipping supplies across the western Mediterranean into northern Italy. These supplies are helping the Germans to hold the Gothic Line and are freeing German troops being shifted to the Siegfried Line, which means the Allied advance will soon run into a tough defensive which will result in the deaths of many additional Allied troops. You have no doubt that the Spanish aid is occurring. What do you do?

Before you answer, let's note a few facts. One, the Spanish involvement is a legitimate casus belli. The Spanish are violating a blockade and are providing war materiel to a combatant, a clear violation of their claim of neutrality. Conversely, the Spanish military is not involved in the war as yet, and if they enter the war fully it will require a sizable fraction of the Allied armies to invade and occupy Spain. While an invasion of Spain may eliminate the source of materiels to Germany, the total death toll among the Allies will almost certainly be higher after an invasion than if the smuggling is permitted to continue. Now what do you do?

Obviously I'm not really talking about World War II, but the current situation in Iraq. I haven't examined the evidence in detail, but it would not surprise me to learn that the various factions jockeying for control of Iraq are getting outside aid from various nations. Iran and Syria have reason to want to see the U.S. pinned down in Iraq for a long time, as it helps to prevent the U.S. from interfering with them. Saudi Arabia isn't likely to stand by and watch Iraq's Sunni minority get stamped out by the Kurds and Shia of Iraq, as the last thing the Saudis want is an Iran on their northern border. It comes as no surprise to me that the U.S. may have evidence that links Iran to some military materiel in Iraq. But even if we stipulate the truth of that (and Jim Henley has a good series noting just what evidence the administration should be required to provide), is an invasion or bombing campaign against Iran a wise plan?

Iran is about four times larger than Iraq in total landmass, with a bit less than three times the population. At the risk of being tarred a loser-defeatist, I think I can fairly say that we don't really have enough troops on the ground in Iraq right now to prevent unacceptable levels of violence in that country. And that's after three years of training the Iraqi Army to help us do the job. So if we don't have enough people to keep Iraq calm with the aid of the local army, it seems safe to assume that we'll need at least four to five times as many soldiers in Iran as we have in Iraq, and that's lowballing the estimate. Back of the envelope math says that comes to some 600,000 troops at a minimum to occupy Iran. Add in the 130,000 we have in Iraq now and we're well in excess of the entire available active duty force, meaning we'll need to dip pretty heavily into the reserves, probably to the level of general mobilization, in order to even put that big a force on the ground in Iran, let alone maintaining it over a five or ten year period. I don't think that's feasible.

So let's say we just bomb the heck out of Iran. That just requires air power, and we are the indisputed kings of the world when it comes to air power at the moment. However, even if we assume a flawless air campaign, history tells us that Iran will not surrender to air power alone. We may be able to damage their nuclear program and exact some form of primitive payment for their actions, but we will not be able to stop them with air power alone. And with the threat of attack having been put into play, there will be nothing to prevent Iran from doing everything in its power to strike back at us. Whether or not they can reach these shores, as long as there are U.S. forces in Iraq they don't need to do much more than smuggle more and more sophisticated weapons systems to those we already fight in Iraq to hurt us. Imagine an insurgency armed with surface-to-air missiles and as many explosively formed penetrator IEDs they want. The losses we're taking in Iraq now would pale in comparison to those we would face if we went to war with Iran. Is striking at Iran worth that risk?

I sympathize with those who want to lash out at Iran. I happen to believe that the Iranian government is providing some degree of aid to our enemies in Iraq. But aside from whatever emotional satisfaction there might be in seeing the mullahs humbled or killed, and I'll admit there would be some, I have to weigh that against the actual benefit we might accrue from attacking Iran. I think it is highly unlikely we would be able to do more than minor damage to their budding nuclear program, perhaps slowing it down by a few years, but little more. We would not stop them from aiding our enemies, but in fact would encourage them to provide more devastating weapons to them. And we would likely set back Iran's burgeoning democratic movement by years if not decades. A small frisson of emotional satisfaction is not worth these things. We need to start planning our foreign policy based on more realism and less emotionalism.