War With Iran: How Will It Affect the Troops?

At the very beginning of this year, right here on HuffPost, I warned that signs were pointing towards military action against Iran. It didn't get much attention at the time, and reporters and television producers weren't interested in talking about it. What a difference six weeks makes.

The BBC reports that we are, indeed, planning for military strikes against Iran. Meanwhile, the President seems to found his reason to attack Iran, pinning American deaths in Iraq on the Iranians (I'll get to that point in a moment and why it doesn't mean we need to launch a new war). Of course, we've seen this before, in 2002. Back then, an overwhelming majority on Capitol Hill told us, "Hey, don't worry, we're not going to go to war with Iraq. We just need to show strength so Saddam backs down."

Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... uh... won't get fooled again.

Yesterday, General Wes Clark, a man I served under in Kosovo, put out a call, for everyone to sign up to a new campaign, jointly sponsored by him and VoteVets.org, www.StopIranWar.com. In just 24 hours, more than 10,000 people sent letters to the White House, Congress, and their local paper, urging some sanity in our military policy. If you haven't already, please take a moment to go to the site and use the tools. Believe me, if every office in Washington and newspapers all around the country get 10,000 emails a day, we will be heard.

General Clark wrote very eloquently about the larger reasons why we must not launch military actions against Iran now. I want to take a second to discuss it from a troop's perspective.

If we were to launch strikes against Iran, their response would be somewhat predictable. Their Mahdi Army in Iraq, which has largely laid low for a while and replenished its forces, would be unleashed to attack our forces in Iraq, probably where we are most overstretched, in the west. Even with the escalation of troops that the President proposes, we wouldn't have enough forces to fight both a Mahdi uprising and the current Sunni insurgents. American forces would be getting attacked from both sides, when each side wasn't fighting with each other. The Pentagon would most likely recommend indefinite extensions of our forces in the region to handle the uprising, some of whom already have spent the majority of the past couple of years in Iraq.

Sure, we could deploy troops from other parts of Iraq to aid in fighting the uprising, but the vacuum in the regions we leave would be filled by an insurgency, trying to gain control of those areas.

What then? Total chaos that makes the situation today look like Disneyland.

Even if Iran was about to become nuclear tomorrow, our troops are simply far too overextended to deal with the consequences of a strike on Iran.

Now, Iran does have a hand, to some degree, in aiding Iraq's Shia insurgency, supplying weapons. We on the ground in Iraq knew that years ago. So, why, if President Bush didn't deal with it before, is it suddenly a grave problem now that has to be met? The only reason I can see is because it gives neocons in the Administration an excuse to launch their desired war against Iran. I would argue that attacking Iran wouldn't solve the problem of the Iranians meddling in Iraq, it would only exacerbate it because the Mahdi Army will be unleashed on our overextended forces. Attacking Iran puts our troops in Iraq at even greater risk, not less, no matter what anyone tells you.

In short, yes, Iran poses a threat and has for a long time. But, our forces simply cannot handle a rush to war with Iran. We are relying on the President to use all diplomatic, political and economic means to leverage Tehran, and avert war with Iran. If the President won't, then the Congress must force him. And if the Congress won't move on this (and so far they haven't), it is up to you to force the issue.

For the troops, do so now. Please join thousands of other Americans at www.StopIranWar.com.