Warmed Over Cold Warrior

The Hugh Hewitt's Blog has a long post on the pro-con arguments about striking Iran before it gets nuclear weapons. He views this as the biggest debate of all and offers to host some of it on his blog: "I will gladly reprint here e-mails from military experts with supporting or opposing views, and will also oblige those who request anonymity provided I can be assured that the writer is who he or she says they are. ..... E-mails can be directed to hugh@hughhewitt.com. "

I'll summarize the five main objections and counter points here, but you should read it all and, if you have the expertise, join in the debate. From Hewitt :

1. The United States military cannot accomplish the mission.

The first part of this objection is that we lack the intelligence to target the right targets.
The second is that the damage that the American military could inflict would be minimal.
The third is that the struck targets could be rebuilt.

All of these seem to me to be military questions, and the left's assertions about the limits of the American military seem dubious to me. ..... Civilians like Alter and me have no business declaring what the U.S. military can or cannot do, but unless the military declares that a mission is beyond its capability, there is much more evidence for the proposition that the Pentagon can accomlish missions rather than the other way around.

2: Striking Iran will cause Iran to strike against our troops in Iraq.

First, there is already an enemy in Iraq trying very hard to kill American troops. ..... (this) seems again to doubt the capacity of the American military to decisively destroy any counter-attacks from the Iranian military, which is absurd, or to suggest that Iranian cross-border meddling could be greater than it already is --another doubtful assertion.

But even admitting that Iran would try to make things worse in Iraq, that is an insufficient answer to the prospect of a nuclear Iran which, upon successful deployment of a nuclear weapon, becomes impossible to threaten over Iraq meddling. The only limit on Iranian interference now is the prospect of American retaliation. Add nukes to the Iranian military capability, and the prospect of Iranian meddling in Iraq skyrockets.

3. An attack on Iran will unleash Iranian-sponsored terrorism around the world.

This argument seems to support decisive, regime-changing military action rather than inaction, given that it presumes a capability and a willingness of the current Iranian regime to use terror around the globe and its proxy Hezbollah to conduct that terror.

Given that presumption, how can delay until Iran becomes a nuclear power benefit the West?

4. America's position in the world will crumble if we attack Iran.

the United States will suffer a great deal of intense and worldwide public criticism if an attack happens --and a great deal of private gratitude.

What all the aging cold warriors seem to refuse to want to recognize is that this is a very different threat from that posed by the never-other-than-wanting-to-stay-alive Soviet Union. Hojjatieh is not about preserving the peace or a balance of power, or any sort of cold or even lukewarm war. When I see an analysts deal with that problem and still counsel restraint, I'll pay attention.

5. There are other ways of deterring Iran's nuclear program.

The only argument against that makes any sense is that measures short of military action will deter Iran from going nuclear. This could be a persuasive argument --it is the one the president has been making, btw-- but thus far nothing has worked, and the Secuirty Council continues to dither.

If the domestic left and its allies around the globe want to avoid the use of military force in Iraq, its spokesmen should immediately put forward demands for world action of the most severe sort, and specifics have to be attached to such demands. Critics of the possible use of military force that offer no alternative and refuse to acknowledge the menace that has now reached the stage of a public announcement and staged celebrations in Iran are simply noisy distractions from the central challenge of the generation.