McInerney: Air War Against Iran Viable

The Captain's Journal ^ | September 1st, 2006 | Herschel Smith

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Washington Times is reporting that:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a prominent proponent in Washington of air strikes against Iran, said that whether the estimate is five years or 10 years, the time span instills complacency in war planning. He said that Mr. Bush is now following the State Department’s diplomatic path, without a clear policy.

“Everyone is in the Jergens lotion mode — ‘woe is me.’ Wringing our hands,” the former fighter pilot said.

Gen. McInerney advocates using B-2 stealth bombers, cruise missiles and jet fighters to conduct a one- or two-day bombing campaign to take out Iran’s air defenses, military facilities and about 40 nuclear targets, which includes a Russian-built reactor and an enrichment plant.

In my post “Did Israel Plan the War? Next on the List: Iran,” I said:

… the use of air power this way absolutely requires very necessary destruction of military infrastructure before the nuclear and oil infrastructure can be targeted (things such as command and control, radar, air fields, surface-to-air missile sites, etc.).

… if the sole goal of a strike against Iran is either to destroy or hold in abatement their nuclear program, then a large scale land invasion not only would be unnecessary, but may even be an impediment.  To be sure, air strikes may have to be on-going and periodic in order to prevent rebuilding of the nuclear infrastructure; satellites would have to be re-tasked; intelligence would have to be good (not only for the initial strikes, but also on a continual basis); and the U.S. and world would have to be prepared for very high oil prices.

But the notion that air power cannot destroy infrastructure — if this is what the intention is — is not just false.  It is false in the superlative degree.  If the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict proves next-to-nothing, it at least proves that infrastructure can be demolished.

Also in my “Iran War Plans,” I pointed out many problems with a ground war with Iran:

• Helicopters do not have the range to get Marines or special forces operators to the nuclear sites.
• The new MV-22 comes close for some of the sites, but there aren’t enough of them in service to effect this troop movement.
• The 82nd and 101st airborne would be shot out of the sky before they ever landed if we dropped them into the belly of Iran.  Even if they weren’t, we could not drop heavy equipment in with them.
• If we did a massive land invasion, it isn’t clear what our goal and objective would be: Where would our troops go?  What would they do when they got there?  How long would they stay there and for what reason?

Once again, if the goal is the destruction of nuclear infrastructure, then this can be accomplished by an air campaign.  Our goal should not be nation-building in this instance.

Strict boundary conditions and thought-rules are the order of the day.  Let’s keep our eye on the ball.  Iran’s nuclear program is the issue in any attack on Iran (we can discuss the closure of the Iranian border with Iraq and Afghanistan in a different context).

And it is nice to see that I stumbled upon the same solution that General McInerney came to be education and study.  Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

[b4its2late]

Sounds like a plan at least. And it'll get the mullahs all riled up in public anyway, which is a good thing.

[TheKidster]

Another added benefit would be job creation! If we bomb infrastructure, Iran could place civilians there and the MSM who are facing layoffs could go there to stage photos with the innocent "victims" of US unilateral, illegal aggression. Then, there would be another boom for the graphic artists of the world, photoshopping the photos brought out of Iran after the bombing campaign to enforce the point of horrendous aggression on the part of the US and it's "Zionist" allies. Finally there would be a great opportunity for people in Iran to start a modeling career similar to that successfully launched by the Lebonese lady who lost 2 or 3 houses during the most recent conflict between the IDF and Hizbullah.

[nathanbedford]

Hooray!

We have a chance to win this thing if McInerney (Saints be praised for such a noble moniker-if only we could get the other tinker, McCaffrey to agree)is right.

Here is what I posted some days ago and see how McInerney's opinion changes everything:

It seems to me we ought to organize our thinking around several essential points:

1. We are engaged in a generational, worldwide war against Islamic fascism which seeks to destroy our democracy and our Western way of life.

2. Our greatest vulnerability in this war is the use by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, against our homeland cities. ( Note the use of the plural).

3. The most likely source of such weapons is Iran, although other nationstates such as North Korea, China, and the former Soviet republics are potential sources for such weapons. However, Iran remains the most likely candidate to commit mischief.

4. If surrogate terrorists armed with nuclear weapons by Iran can explode a nuclear device in an American city while keeping other devices hidden in reserve, our republic probably cannot survive as a democracy because the internal pressure to surrender will be irresistible in the wake of multiple strikes.

5. Therefore, our greatest immediate strategic objective is to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear bombs.

6. We are unlikely to succeed in this objective for the following reasons: first, according to retired General McCaffrey, we lack the assets to knock out Iran's nuclear development program by airstrikes alone. Indeed, General McCaffrey stated that the notion that this could be accomplished by airstrikes alone is "insane." Second, our conventional assets are severely attenuated and depleted by our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, the Iranians are quite aware of our predicament and cannot be intimidated or bribed into abandoning their nuclear program. Fourth, our Western allies have expressly stated that they would not participate in military action against Iran. Fifth, sanctions will not deter the Iranians because the Chinese and the Russians have already stated their opposition to such sanctions should they be introduced in this Security Council. Finally, the Bush doctrine is dead and cannot be revived absent another strike on the American homeland.

7. The acquisition by Iran of the nuclear bomb, coupled with its present ability to deliver it by rocket as far as Israel, when considered with its rhetorical threats against Israel, constitutes an existential threat to the very survival of Israel. Therefore, the possibility is not entirely unlikely that Israel will attempt to interdict Iran's nuclear program. If United States has not the air assets to accomplish this task, Israel certainly does not possess them either and this implies that Israel will seriously consider a preemptive strike with nuclear weapons-a step which is unthinkable for an American president confronted with a threat remote in time, might be the only solution for an Israeli Prime Minister who considers his people to be facing immediate annihilation.

8. In the likely event that Iran acquires nuclear weapons she must be contained and it is here that the ideas of Lou D. come into play. The question arises whether a homicidal, maniacal, and suicidal nationstate, operating through even more crazed surrogates, can even be deterred by the prospect of mutual destruction. It is important to note that Lou D. does not rely merely on a passive application of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. To deal with the conundrum of amorphus, extra-national terrorist groups operating as hidden proxies for nation states like Iran, Lou D. suggest that we announced in advance our intention to rain destruction down upon such nations, much like Kennedy threatened the Soviet Union in 1962 if an attack was launched from Cuba.

9. In the event that Iran acquires the bomb but refrains from dealing it to terrorist proxies to use against us, there nevertheless remains the daunting prospect of a seismic shift in the balance of power again us. First, before we invade another nation such as Afghanistan or Iraq, we will have to consider that to some degree at least Iran has a nuclear deterrent against us. If, even under these circumstances, we chance to invade a rogue Middle Eastern country other than Iran and fight a conventional war, we will be doing so in an environment which is rigged against us. The doctrine of "proportionate response" means that we will not be able to punish with overwhelming force the population who have supplied, financed, and otherwise succored terrorists. Nevertheless, it must be done. (But n.b. this is precisely the opposite of what is happening in the Lebanon and in Iraq. We are unjustly getting the worldwide blame for committing disproportionate responses while reaping too few of the benefits.)

10. The principal weapon in waging the war against Muslim terrorism over generations and around the world must be intelligence. This means that the intelligence services of all the nations of the world must cooperate and be coordinated if we are to succeed. That means we must hold the Western democracies, a very difficult task at best made all the more difficult if Iran gets the bomb. Even more important, we must enlist the Muslim nations of the world and their intelligence services if we are to prevail in this war. It is the Muslim countries which are our indispensable allies.

11. The war against terrorism will be won only if a majority of the world's sane Muslims come to the belief that their survival, even more than ours, depends on the destruction of the crazed fundamentalists. They can reach this conclusion by judging the character of the fundamentalists themselves or they can come to the conclusion that they would be smarter to fear America more than Allah. Alas, our ability to intimidate the Muslim world into cooperation with us will be severely diminished by the combination of the Iranians having the bomb and the demonstrated ability of "insurgents" in Iraq and Lebanon, waging asymmetrical warfare, to inflict casualties which are PERCEIVED to be unacceptable to Western democracies.

12. The war must be fought in the corners of the globe but it can be lost at home. We will lose, as noted, if the terrorists can set off a series of bombs in the American heartland. We can also lose if the center does not hold. If America turns blue, and we were only a few electoral votes away the last election in Ohio from turning the country over to the appeasers, the Western alliance, such as it is, will shatter and the Moslem world will atomize into a new dark age of tribal fiefdoms and sectarian violence spliced for good measure with nuclear bombs. Alternatively, the Western alliance might not hold, especially in the event that Iran gets the bomb. If the Western alliance goes, it is probably only a matter of time until America turns blue.

The logic of these points is certainly distressing, indeed dismaying, but not hopeless. The enemy suffers from more than its share of problems and perhaps fatal weaknesses. Just as the Soviet Union was ultimately undone by its own ideology, so Muslim fanaticism will probably destroy itself with its own irrationality and superstition. These are our points of attack and this is why we need intelligence and Muslim allies to exploit them to the utter destruction of Muslim fanaticism. Finally, waging terroristic jihad in pursuit of world domination for Islam carries its own internal, and perhaps fatal, inconsistency: in order to divide its enemies and intimidate them individually, the terrorist must step up his attacks and this could very well produce the opposite reaction than intended. If the next blow in our heartland is not fatal it will only stiffen our resolve. Likewise, if the extremist miscalculates in dosing Europe with a taste of terror, the Europeans might even wake up.

[RightWhale]

They'll want to disable the nuke tipped IRBMs right away. That will have to be cruise missiles since the air defense will still be in place.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

11. The war against terrorism will be won only if a majority of the world's sane Muslims come to the belief that their survival, even more than ours, depends on the destruction of the crazed fundamentalists. They can reach this conclusion by judging the character of the fundamentalists themselves or they can come to the conclusion that they would be smarter to fear America more than Allah. Alas, our ability to intimidate the Muslim world into cooperation with us will be severely diminished by the combination of the Iranians having the bomb and the demonstrated ability of "insurgents" in Iraq and Lebanon, waging asymmetrical warfare, to inflict casualties which are PERCEIVED to be unacceptable to Western democracies.

Yes!

[P.O.E.]

Everyone is in the Jergens lotion mode

LOL! I'd say this applies to the hand-wringers, the j-offs and the a-holes.

[CholeraJoe]

What are we waiting for? Crack open the igloos at Whiteman and start uploading the CSRL's.

[finnman69]

If the Iranians are puring their high oil price sach into buying weapons, lets force them to use that money on rebuilding their infrastructure.

There is no questionw e have the technology to wipe out the majority of their nuke program and seriously set them back.

[elfman2]

Air strikes may be a good solution, but this article ignores the real problems, political.

1) If Bush prepared to act without Congressional authority, his opposition in State, the Pentagon or where ever would blow the whistle. Democrats would try to force him to seek their approval. If he refused, they’d try to paralyze the government. I don’t know if they could succeed, but Bush’s MO is to find compromise when confronted by political division.

2) If Bush presses Congress for the authority to conduct an air campaign, Democrats will try to rally a majority against his unwillingness to exhaust diplomatic options. I don’t know if they’ll achieve a majority, but it will be close.

3) If Bush spends another two years exhausting diplomatic options, Democrats will probably stand 100% united against a new military campaign in an election year, likely pulling in a few Republicans to capture the majority on that one. I think it's a no-go.

4) As all this transpires and we prepare for war, the world will take advantage of our vulnerability and work to isolate us and profit from defending Iran.

This is just just off the top of my head, certainly not a complete list and there are certainly offsetting political advantages and dynamics that can’t be predicted, but at least this much needs to be accounted for when weighing our options with Iran.

[Brit1]

Do the Iranians have a delivery system that would allow them to attack the US I doubt it .Israel is a different matter but then knowing the Israeli military as they are I have no doubt they would 'Do'them long before anybody else got there.

[Brad C.]

Seems to me the best way to handle it would be a surgical strike upon one of their cabinet meetings, or whatever they call them. Eliminate the current leadership as effectively as possible, and it may end up being a different Iran.

[Marine_Uncle]

Plenty of people know what to hit and in what order. It is a matter of will, and of course the justification of pre-emptive strikes. Should the US set a new standard whereby all nations can say the US can do it so can we. This is one of the sticky points that is hard to resolve at this point in time.
No one but some members of the US executive branch and some think tankers and some air force staff even want to consider pre-emptive attacks on Iran's infrastructure, military, and nuclear/industrial complexes. The rest of the world are against the idea, including all of our traditional allies.
It is a tough call to say the least.

[4woodenboats]

1 MOAB dropped down the well that the 12th Imam is designated to crawl out of would keep 'em distracted for awhile, so it should hit first.