It
is becoming increasingly hard to go three days without reading an article or
seeing a news segment concerning Israel, Iran, and the possibility of a new
Middle Eastern war for the United States.
The cause of this conflict is Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program and it
government’s repeated threats and innuendos that Israel has no right to
existence; something the Israeli government is not very agreeable with. It is believed that Israel will attack Iran
in one form or another, with or without American aid. While many decry the possibility of another
American war in the region—fittingly in the nation between the United States’
other two conflict zones—there is reason to believe that such a military
involvement may turn out better than expected.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have
had a humbling effect on the American military, but only humbling in a certain
aspect. Like the Vietnam War before
them, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States is still ill
equipped to deal with an armed conflict guerrilla in nature. These insurgent struggles are inherent in the
nature of guerrilla warfare. The
organized, formal military (in these cases represented by the United States)
are easy to attack as they have uniforms which designate their troops, flags
when label their bases, and patrols which can be monitored. The insurgent military (in these cases
represented by various factions within Iraq and Afghanistan) blend in with the
populace, launch hit-and-run style ambushes, are often willing to commit
suicide-attacks, and are so informalized that they are nearly impossible to
wipe out.
While this style of warfare has
become associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, it would be incorrect to
assume that they have always been fought in this manner. The invasion of Iraq began in March 2003 with
the goal of “regime change,” i.e. overthrowing the government of Saddam
Hussein. It must be noted that this
mission was accomplished by the end of May the same year, with Hussein himself
captured in December 2003. The
Afghanistan War, begun in late 2001, is murkier than its Iraqi brother, as the
stated mission was to not only overthrow the Taliban government but to also
prevent terrorist forces from using the country as an operating base. While the Taliban government itself was
successfully overthrown by 2002, the unrealistic goal of preventing terrorist
forces from operating inside the country has been the cause of the United
States’ continuing involvement in the twelve-year conflict.
Keeping in mind that the Iraq and
Afghanistan endeavors only went bad when the American military had successfully
defeated the organized opposition militaries, there is reason to believe that
an Iranian war may not fare too badly.
With a good commander-in-chief, one who does not let mission creep set
in, the United States and Israel could potentially launch a successful invasion
of the Persian nation. But there are
several factors which must be taken into account.
The United States, naturally, has
the second largest military in the world (behind China) with over a million and
a half active duty soldiers, with another million and a half in reserve. Now, of course, all these troops would not be
mobilized, but for a conflict of this magnitude it is fair to say that at least
half a million troops would be sent in; the comparison being Iraq in which the
United States sent in one hundred and thirty-five thousand troops, but with a
larger coalition than would likely be available against Iran and against a
smaller military than Iran possesses.
The coalition which the United States would be able to muster for an
invasion of Iran would include Israel and likely few other nations, at least
not in major roles. Additionally, Iran’s
military is over twice the size of Iraq’s was at the time of the invasion, so
many more American troops would likely be mobilized.
While the Iranian military would
have the advantage of home-field, it would likely be mitigated by America’s
technological superiority, both in terms of weapons and surveillance. The United States’ drone program has yet to
see much combat action against a formal military, but one can reason that it
would be even more effective than it already has been against terror suspects. Additionally, America’s vast naval
superiority would provide both firepower and a blockade of Iran’s substantial
coastline, enabling the United States to at least partially strangle the
nation, preventing it from selling its valuable oil resources.
The invasion would even further
benefit from correspondence with Iran’s democratic supporters both within and
without the country. By working with
these native Iranians, the United States could generate a civil response
against the Iranian government which could help weaken the military during the
invasion and create a quicker transition towards a true democratic
government. This would additionally
provide more legitimacy for the invasion on the international stage.
The purpose of this column is not to
condone an invasion of Iran, nor to state its inevitability. Instead, I simply seek to point out why such
an event may not turn out as poorly as many claim that it will; for with good
leadership, the worst-case scenario usually does not happen. However, whether or not the United States and
Israel current have the leaders to successfully pull off a Persian invasion
remains to be seen, although one must hope that circumstances do not force the
hand of Washington and Jerusalem.
No comments:
Post a Comment