Is the Military Our Last, Best Hope for Averting War with Iran?
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted November 13, 2007.
When military command is the voice of reason in a debate about a new
war, you know our democracy is in trouble.
The last, best hope for averting a war with Iran lies with the United
States military. The Democratic Congress, cowed by the Israel lobby
and terrified of appearing weak on defense before the presidential
elections, will do nothing to halt an attack. The media, especially
the electronic press, is working overtime to whip up fear of a nuclear
Iran and tar Tehran with abetting attacks against American troops in
Iraq. The American public is complacent, unsure of what to believe,
knocked off balance by fear and passive. We will be saved or doomed by
our generals.
The last wall of defense that prevents the Bush administration from
targeting Iran, an attack that could ignite a regional conflagration
and usher in apocalyptic scenarios in the Middle East, runs through
the offices of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Adm. William Fallon
, the head of the Central Command (CENTCOM); and Gen. George Casey,
the Army's new chief of staff. These three figures in the defense
establishment have told George W. Bush and the Congress how depleted
the U.S. military has become, that it cannot manage another conflict,
and that a war with Iran would make the war with Iraq look like an act
of prudence and common sense.
The reliance on the military command, however, to be the voice of
reason in the debate about a new war is not a healthy sign for our
deteriorating democracy. Compliant generals can always be found to
carry out the Dr. Strangelove designs of a mad White House. Those who
resist implementing decisions can easily be removed. The protective
cover provided by these figures in the defense establishment could
vanish.
The United States is able to launch a massive and devastating air
attack on Iran's military installations. It can obliterate the Iranian
air force. It can cripple if not dismantle effective communications
and military command and control. It can destroy some of Iran's
underground nuclear facilities. But our intelligence inside Iran, as
was true in Iraq, is uneven. We do not know where all of Iran's
nuclear facilities are. And it is probable that an Iranian response
against American targets, such as the Green Zone in Iraq, as well as
Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on American soil, would follow.
Shiites in the region would interpret an attack as a war on the Shiite
community and would unleash unrest, terrorism and violence against us
and our allies from Lebanon to Pakistan.
The battle is between the Cheney camp, which would like to carry out
strikes on Iran before Bush leaves office, and Gates and his senior
generals. Cheney, who has always been able to push aside the feckless
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is having a tougher time with the
military. Fallon, for example, was successful in his attempt to block
efforts by Cheney to move a third aircraft carrier into the Persian
Gulf earlier this year and bluntly said that "there would be no war
against Iran" as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.
Gen. Casey informed Congress this fall that the Army was "out of
balance" and added: "The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable
supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight,
and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for
other potential contingencies."
This White House has a habit of dismissing recalcitrant generals. Gen.
Eric Shinseki, when he was chief of staff of the Army, ended his
career when he told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on the
eve of the war in Iraq that "something in the order of several hundred
thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. Gen.
Peter Pace also ran afoul of the White House and was not nominated for
a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he
publicly defied Donald Rumsfeld. At a press conference in November
2005 he stood next to Rumsfeld as the secretary of defense asserted
that "the United States does not have a responsibility" to prevent
torture by Iraqi officials. Pace pointedly disagreed with Rumsfeld,
saying, "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service
member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene,
to stop it." Pace also openly dismissed White House claims that Iran
was supplying weapons and explosively formed penetrators to Iraqi
insurgents. He too was shown the door.
More: http://www.alternet.org/audits/67654/
|
