On the 30th anniversary of the ill-fated Soviet invasion of Afghanistan another lesson in armchair military sophistry graces the op-ed pages of the New York Times. This time around it's not Benny Morris who is calling for military aggression against Iran to stop its nuclear program but another armchair general from the academy, Alan Kuperman. In his editorial titled "There's Only One Way to Stop Iran", Kuperman yells "Charge!" from the safety of his office at the University of Texas, Austin.
Kuperman claims to recognize the risks involved in the United States bombing Iran's nuclear sites, writing: "[M]ilitary action could backfire in various ways, including undermining Iran's political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region." But having acknowledged the potential costs of such a reckless, aggressive, and illegal military action, Kuperman then goes on to advocate just that: "[M]ilitary strikes could work . . . [and] Iran's atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons." Citing bogus "lessons" from "history" and ignoring how real people in the real world respond to being bombed, Kuperman sees a political benefit in Iran in the form of a bolstered opposition movement resulting from the U.S. aerial assault. Kuperman doesn't see Iranians responding to the bombing of their homeland by taking to the streets and chanting "Death to the Great Satan!" But rather, he sees grateful yokels outside yelling "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"
In a fit of macho chest pounding Kuperman states: "If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to." Which raises the question: Has Kuperman been paying attention at all to the course of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? And if he has he should then explain explicitly (instead of implicitly as in this piece) if he truly believes that the United States could "oust" the Iranian regime "in weeks." If he's suggesting that outcome then he needs to explain exactly how the United States military would accomplish this feat.
Kuperman also suggests that the Iranians are already "aiding America's opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan," which is a novel interpretation of Iran's relationship with the Shia government of Nouri Al-Maliki in Iraq, as well as the long history of bitter antagonism between the fanatically Shia Iranian government and the hyper-Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. Again, one must wonder if Mr. Kuperman is paying any attention at all to the region where he is advocating the use of military violence as a kind of panacea.
More macho chest thumping follows as Kuperman writes that U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities would "remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate." Here Kuperman's recipe for success might require nothing short of the systematic, prolonged, and savage bombardment of a nation of 70 million people.
Kuperman never mentions the potential cost in civilian deaths in Iran stemming from such an assault that might anger the population. The air strikes Kuperman fantasizes about are so surgical and precise they won't even skin the knee of an Iranian child.
And after urging the United States military to do the dirty work Kuperman believes there would be an international deterrent effect from the U.S. military aggression "because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be [nuclear] proliferators."
Yeah, Alan, that could happen -- but it also could create a strong incentive for other nations to get their hands on nuclear weapons ASAP to deter American (or Israeli) aggression like the kind you advocate.
Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/:
Perhaps one might argue that WWII, in resoundingly defeating Nazi fascism and malicious Japanese imperialism, served the nation well, by rapidly extracting the economy from the grip of depression, and by inducing a magnificent educational, scientific and manufacturing capacity in the nation. Parallel to these felicitous developments, however, was the emergence -- as Eisenhower warned -- of a military/industrial complex, and an economic system devoted to war and war-making to sustain obscene profits and to seek world dominance -- all at the expense of the greater society and our representative democratic governance.
Wall Street's efforts to "off-shore" war-making, of course, have only been partially successful, but they've certainly been able to "off-shore" most of our famed scientific and manufacturing capabilities, in their frantic efforts to diminish the once rising political clout of the middle and working classes.
Who's "we"? "We" should do this and "we" should do that. Who's "we" dude? The US dropped more tonnage on Vietnam than Europe during WW II. How'd we do? The results of shock and awe was what in Iraq? An insurgency. How'd that work out Alan? I suppose Hazbollah and Hamas will sit back and say, "Oh gee, Alan is displeased with Iran. We better not cause all sorts of terrorist hell in the Middle East." Alan, are you prepared to defend the US Army that will be caught in Iraq by a Shite/Iranian counterattack? Will you have their backs? Do you know anyone you have volunteered to have an even bigger target painted on their back? Will you be available to counsel the loved ones for their losses? On both sides? Unless you are prepared to get into it Alan, stay out of it.
People who associate western thinking to the Iranian regime are making a big mistake. The regime is apocalyptic and they are not assessing the risks as the west is used to with the likes of the former Soviet Union.
The only thing worse than a strike on Iran is Iran unleashing a nuclear Armageddon on the middle east and upon the world.
Given proper conditions the country can thrive and peacefully co exist with other nations of the world.
Perhaps Mr.Kuperman is unaware that in 1953 the CIA deposed the first democratically elected government of Iran because they intended to nationalize their oil fields(that's SOCIALISM!).A generation later we were humiliated and kicked out for good.
Now Mr.Kuperman wants us to carry out a unilateral attack(which he thinks would just be super)even as growing populist support calls for change from within.Those protesters will not rise up on our behalf if we carry out those attacks,Mr.Kuperman.I understand you believe this would be in the best interest of Israel but in the long run it would not.
Will we never learn our lessons? Iran is little threat to the US and does not even have a nuclear weapon. Shouldn't we attack Pakistan, India, North Korea, israel first??
If israel has a problem with Iran let them do their own dirty work for a change (and suffer the consequences.
prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, unfairness, one-sidedness; bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, leaning, tendency, inclination, predilection.
Surprised? Are you forgetting Judy Miller and her sidekick Michael Gordon whose collaboration with the Office of Special Plans was pivotal in selling the Iraq War?
As Ayatollah Khomeinis said about the Iran-Iraq war, "This war is a divine blessing" for it had not been for the 8-year war, the mullahs and their thugs would have never been able to consolidate their iron grip power.
You may not agree with him on Iran, but his military credentials are better than most anybody else following this website.
Well, first of all 60 million pretty annoyed Iranians (just counting those who are in favour of their nuclear program), and Mousavi and his supporters throwing themselves full force behind Ahmadinejad the same way the Democrats threw themselves behind Bush on 9/12.
And with that support, Ahmadinejad could openly defy the Supreme Leader's opposition to nuclear weapons and have the Iranian equivalent of a Manhattan project. And with an educated workforce, as well as an industrialised economy, they could achieve a working bomb, and a working missile for the bomb, much faster than the Soviets did.
Then there would be the effects on US relations with the world outside NATO, with every country realising that they could be next on the US hit list, the end of the NNPT (after all, a non-weapons country is supposed to get protection from such an attack, as well as assistance with their nuclear program. Scrap those, and make it clear that the US will not let anything stop it from doing what it wants, except possession of a nuclear bomb, and watch how many countries decide that their only safety is either to bow to the US, or get a bomb.
It is illogical for academic A to challenge validity of academic B opinion on the basis of B being armchair thinker.
While Academic A offers his analysis from... an identical academic armchair.
Think about it...