William Arkin filed this story Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War with the Washington Post online. The article talks about U.S. military planning for a war with Iran.
First let’s address the naming of this article. “Despite Denials” would suggest that someone of prominence cited in the article was about to deny the planning of war with Iran. But what we got was this:
“Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld similarly called media speculation about Iran war planning as "fantasyland."
Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."
I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary.”
This is not a denial. This is telling the press that there is no way he (the SecDef) is going to go into planning cycle details with the media. The “fantasyland” comment is obviously about the speculation of the media, not the idea of planning. Because everybody who has two brain cells to rub together knows that the military is always planning from the most likely threat scenarios to the most obscure potential danger.
To imply that the SecDef here is trying to tell the American people that what is obviously known to be true is false, well Mr. Arkin, you are just insulting our intelligence and I for one don’t appreciate it. Do you really think we just sit around waiting for you to explain the big, wide world to us and we have no concept how things work? Please don’t insult your readers anymore or they will stop reading you, at least the ones who are informed anyway.
Mr. Arkin then goes on to explain that he “begs to differ” by drawing a historical comparison to Iraq:
“Maybe history will show that the Bush administration was so hell bent on war in 2002-2003, nothing that Saddam Hussein could have done would have prevented it. Still the world went through the motions of U.N. inspections and the Security Council and the U.S. Congress made decisions based upon the allusion that war could still be averted, that all diplomatic options would be exhausted before the decision to go to war was made.
We now also know that the Iraqis themselves didn't quite believe that the United States was serious about regime change and that it would go all the way. Perhaps though, had the United States candidly stated its intentions rather than spending so much time denying reality, Baghdad would have gotten the message and war would have been averted, perhaps in another time and place.
It seems today we face a similar problem with Iran. The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.”
So we were planning on having a war and forgot to invite Iraq? Mr. Arkin, I am so tired of this revisionist history. I am thinking about having this tattooed on my forearm so I don’t have to even print it off the internet anymore. It is a little thing called the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
Excerpt:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
AND
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
AND
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
This resolution was passed in October of 2002. Saddam knew full well that President Bush was going to come after him. Congress made that clear. The administration made that clear. Saddam tried to kill a President of the United States for crying out loud! Mr. Arkin’s attempt to portray Saddam as unaware of the American response that was about to occur is unfathomable. Mr. Arkin, you have just fallen for Saddam’s carefully crafted public image of a martyr, about three years late.
But this is not the most misleading portion of the article. Mr. Arkin appears to have a decent understanding of some aspects of U.S. military war planning. He details what would seem to be simulation efforts that are designed to enhance war gaming and feed into high level planning for war with Iran:
But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.
It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called "experts" are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.
But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.
Mr. Arkin does make a good point that Iran needs to know the U.S. is serious. But I think the fact that thousands of U.S. troops are sitting within miles of Iran's borders and that President Bush ousted the Taliban and Saddam, well, I don't think there is anyone left in the Middle East that does not take President Bush serious.
But there are some essential elements that Mr. Arkin left out. Let’s draw another historical comparison shall we. The majority of U.S. war gamming, simulation, operational analysis, and strategic planning were focused on two “hotspots” during the 70’s through the early 90’s.
The Fulda Gap scenario that envisioned a Soviet army invading Western Europe and the Korean peninsula scenario were both highly gamed for decades. Both of these vignettes were based on real world threats, that never developed into hot wars (some bit of war by proxy) like those planned.
Mr. Arkin also says:
As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone.
Despite this disclaimer, what else could be the intent of his article than to make a conclusion that an attack is imminent as determined by an examination of U.S. war planning?
Mr. Arkin draws an analogy between planning for war in Iraq and implies that because we war game for war in Iran it is an indicator. This is an incomplete comparison. Fifty years of data back up the reverse conclusion. That war planning is not an indicator that war will actually occur.
The process that Mr. Arkin gives us a peak at does not give any indication as to intention, only potential. When the DOD determines a threat, that likely threat is gamed at high levels. When that gaming requires operational analysis or even simulation, it requires traceability, meaning you want all simulations and planning to lead back to the current threat theater so that everyone involved understands the same vignette. Traceability means that over time as unrelated simulation are required (say a system development independent of the theater), DOD agencies will reuse those vignettes because it is more cost effective, everyone is familiar with them, it provides redundancy of testing and is easily repeatable, and it does enhance understanding of that terrain.
In other words, Mr. Arkin is putting the cart before the horse. He glances at simulation and war planning efforts and scares uninformed readers into thinking an imminent operation is under way, despite his disclaimer. When the reality is that those simulations support research, development, and training and those simulations and war plans have to have some piece of dirt to work on. So it might as well be the most current “hot spot” so that everyone understands the planning or testing you have done at an intuitive level instead of learning new scenarios all the time.
Mr. Arkin has taken good business practice and used it to scare people who have no other source for this information. While at the same time, he also made the mistake of thinking that there is anybody left in the Middle East that does not take President Bush seriously that he will defend the U.S. against potential threats. I am completely confused by his seeming reverse logic that the things he thinks do matter are the ones that don't and that the Bush Administration has not been hardline with Iran. I don't get how he can come to these conclusions, but now you have an alternative POV.
OPFOR I like these guys already
Comments