If Wishes Were Ponies...

... then Oliver Willis and Nick Beaudrot would be right that "[m]ilitary strikes against against Iran would quite clearly be an act of war; without Congressional authorization it would pribma facie be an impeachable offense." In the real world, though, I didn't see Bill Clinton getting impeached for bombing Serbia without congressional authorization even by a congress that was eager to impeach Bill Clinton so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that one.

Congress' de facto war powers have been reduced to the need to get congressional approval for war-related spending. What we just saw with Iraq, though, is that according to the media, if Democrats vote for a funded withdrawal of troops, and then Bush vetoes those funds and demands that Democrats give him a blank check, then it would be a failure to "support the troops" for Democrats to refuse to cave to this demand. We've also seen that many -- if not most -- congressional Democrats accept this framing. So if Bush decides he wants to bomb Iran, nobody in congress is going to stop him. Dana Priest, though, speaks for surprisingly many journalist when she says:

Frankly, I think the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions. This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, said yesterday. That the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the "war" or "bombing" part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?

To me, though, it's important to avoid overstating the degree of military opposition to a bomb Iran policy. As best I can tell, the Army is dead-set against it. But the Army wouldn't be carrying the mission out anyway. It'd be shocking for the Air Force to suddenly come to appreciate the strategic limits of air power. In their minds, bombing Iran won't compound the error of Iraq; rather, it'll show the manifest benefits of doing things their way rather than getting bogged-down into an Army-style quagmire.

Comments

You write:

In the real world, though, I didn't see Bill Clinton getting impeached for bombing Serbia without congressional authorization even by a congress that was eager to impeach Bill Clinton so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that one.

Two points. First, Clinton argued that he was acting in accord woth the NATO Treaty, which is, of course, US law. In essence, he was saying his actions were authorized by Congressional action.

Second, there were express funding provisions by the Congress for the Kosovo conflict. At the least, Congress provided implicit approval of the Kosovo conflict by its enactment of funding for that conflict.

Not that Bush would ever be impeached, but attacking Iran would be more akin to, Constitutionally and legally, Ronald Reagan's attack on Grenada and Bush 41's attack on Panama.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 10:48 AM

I think it's analytically questionable to suggest that a military revolt is at all likely in a foreign theater. Soldiers, as I understand it, do not mutiny over policy disagreements . . . traitors might be motivated by boredom, drunkenness, self-preservation, or the will to power, but they won't be fragging anyone for bloggish reasons.

Posted by southpaw | October 1, 2007 10:54 AM

Somehow, Armando, I fancy that the lawyers for Reagan and Bush I were just as good as the Clinton administration lawyers in ginning up legal justifications for whatever the president was doing. The fact that you apparently remember in great detail the justifications for Clinton's actions while conveniently forgetting the justifications for Reagan and Bush says more about you than about the legality of those various actions.

Posted by y81 | October 1, 2007 10:55 AM

We should absolutely NOT be hoping for a full scale revolt of the military against civilian authority. Down that path lies madness, bad precedent for future action, and Bananna Republic status for the US.

On the list of things stopping us from entering into a disastrous war with Iran, full scale mutiny by the generals in the Petagon should not be on the wish list. Resignations of all of the top generals with loud protestations of what a bad idea this is, yes absolutely, but an outright refusal to accede to the civilian authority would be a bad, bad step for this country to take.

Posted by NonyNony | October 1, 2007 10:59 AM

y81 writes:

Somehow, Armando, I fancy that the lawyers for Reagan and Bush I were just as good as the Clinton administration lawyers in ginning up legal justifications for whatever the president was doing. The fact that you apparently remember in great detail the justifications for Clinton's actions while conveniently forgetting the justifications for Reagan and Bush says more about you than about the legality of those various actions.

Actually I did not forget them. They simply did not pass the redface test.

Reagan acted to "protect Americans" in Grenada.

Bush 41 acted "because Noriega was involved in drug trafficking."

If you see these "legal justifications" as comparable to acting in concert with NATO, then that says something about you. I think it says you are a Clinton hater or a Republican or both.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 11:07 AM

Actually, I was wrong in the sense that there was a "treaty" cited by Reagan. Link:

A 1981 treaty cited by the Reagan Administration as part of the legal basis for invading Grenada has not been formally registered with the United Nations, according to a representative of the United Nations Secretariat.

Article 102 of the United Nations Charter provides that no party may invoke an unregistered treaty ''before any organ of the United Nations.''

The State Department said last week that the invasion had been justified by a request under the treaty, which created the seven-member Organization of East Caribbean States.

Although the United States is not a party, the State Department said the request by some members of the group for military assistance made the invasion a ''regional collective security measure'' qualifying under an exception to the United Nations Charter's nonintervention provisions.

Since the US was NOT a party, then there was no Congressional approval of any defense obligations on the United States.

UNLIKE the NATO Charter.

It is clear that Reagan acted without Congressional approval. Clinton argues that he did not.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 11:14 AM

"Down that path lies madness, bad precedent for future action, and Bananna Republic status for the US."

We've already started down that path, with elements of the left legitimizing political attacks on active duty generals. The next step will be for the generals to push back politically in some fashion.

Anyhow, regarding Congressional authorization for war, the precedent set by Bush 41 and maintained since then is that the President asks for authorizations for military actions that involve large scale use of ground forces; other actions can be taken without advance Congressional approval. Thus, the Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had advance Congressional authorization, but Bush 41's brief invasion of Panama, Clinton's actions in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq, etc. didn't have it.

Bombing Iran would be analogous to Reagan's bombing of Libya, or Clinton's Desert Fox campaign against Iraq. Neither required Congressional authorization, and neither sparked any military revolts.

Posted by Fred | October 1, 2007 11:15 AM

well, the relevant analysis is what happened with the nixon impeachment, since that was, you know, an actual impeachment.

given the chance to include an article impeaching nixon for the illegal invasion of cambodia, the justice committee chose not to, on the grounds that turning national security issues into high crimes and misdemanors was a terrible precedent.

and no, there's no reason to think that the military will be why we don't attack iran, although it would be nice if this go round, some senior military officials actually resigned in protest when we do attack iran.

Posted by howard | October 1, 2007 11:17 AM

please stop dignifying willis with links. today's asininity? accusing politico of running an anti-clinton story merely to boost 'circulation' under a link to a story about an eva longoria sex tape.

why do the weapons-grade stupid knee-jerk lefties like willis remain influential? a dirty acknowledgment of the regrettable validity of the reptile brain's instincts? like why right wingers still read coulter?

Posted by lucretius | October 1, 2007 11:21 AM

As for Panama, Wiki has this:

On December 22 the Organization of American States passed a resolution deploring the invasion and calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops.[17] The OAS Charter, to which the US is a signatory and party, prohibits members from invading other members for any reason. The United States ratified the Charter of the Organization of American States in 1948.[18] Chapter II, Article 3(f) of the Charter of the Organization of American States provides, in relevant part, that: "Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political, economic, and social system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it, and has the duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State."[19]Under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, treaties ratified by the U.S. are among the supreme law of the land of the U.S.[20]

Unlike Clinton's claim regarding the NATO Charter,it seems apparent that Bush 41 acted in direct violation of a duly enacted treaty, in contravention to federal law.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

We'll see what the mood is if he hits Iran and they don't just stand there and take it.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | October 1, 2007 11:22 AM

Fred writes:

We've already started down that path, with elements of the left legitimizing political attacks on active duty generals.

Who knew Fox News and Col. David Hunt were elements of the Left? Live and learn.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 11:24 AM

i like your rules, fred: generals are supposed to be exempt from criticism. perhaps you could show us where in the constitution that one comes up: we'd really like to know.

and we'd really like to know why it is that when john kerry is savagely attacked from the crime of having a purple heart, that didn't constitute "legitimizing" a political attack on the military (oh, he wasn't a general, so it's ok?)

and we'd really like to know how it is that harry truman wasn't impeached for criticizing a general when he fired macarthur.

and so much more....

Posted by howard | October 1, 2007 11:28 AM

"Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political, economic, and social system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it..."

What about internal interference? The people of Panama elected Guillermo Endara to lead them in a free election, and Noriega interfered by nullifying the election, and having his thugs beat Guillermo Endara and his supporters bloody. After the U.S. invasion, we turned over power to Endara, the man the Panamanians had voted for.

The international condemnation of Operation Just Cause was emblematic of an era when the international community gave little thought to the internal affairs of despotic countries. Today, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same folks who opposed it are agitating for military involvement in Sudan.

Posted by Fred | October 1, 2007 11:36 AM

Of course, the major difference is that none of those earlier presidents had led us into a pointless, fruitless, useless war in their first terms while allowing a terror mastermind to go free.

Posted by Oliver Willis | October 1, 2007 11:40 AM

"So if Bush decides he wants to bomb Iran, nobody in congress is going to stop him."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hell, at this point Bush could bomb any country on the planet and nobody in Congress would stand in his way. He could attack San Francisco and Dems would authorize a continuing supplemental for more napalm for Castro Street. Kill, kill, kill. It's what America wants for breakfast!

Posted by steve duncan | October 1, 2007 11:41 AM

Fred:

You miss the point. I am not arguing about the international law aspect, though certainly it seems clear that international law was violated, I am argung about the lack of Congressional authorization for the military action in Panama.

I refer you to the fallacious comparison made by Yglesias in his post between Clinton in Kosovo and an attack on Iran by Bush without Congressional authorization.

The better comparisons are to Panama and Grenada.

The interesting point I think is that both actions likely would have garnered Congressional support prior to occurence.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 11:46 AM

The precedent is Nixon, not Clinton. President Nixon also engaged in a war unauthorized by congress, and was also the subject of articles of Impeachment. One proposed Article concerning the bombing of Cambodia was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, while the Watergate-related Articles were approved by the Committee link. (Nixon resigned before the House could vote on impeachment, and then pardoned).

Posted by old guy | October 1, 2007 11:51 AM

please stop dignifying willis with links. today's asininity? accusing politico of running an anti-clinton story merely to boost 'circulation' under a link to a story about an eva longoria sex tape.

The non-sequitur nature of lucretius's post suggests to me that Oliver's real crime here is posting a link to a rumored Eva Longoria sex tape. Because non feminist sex is baaaadddddd.

As for accusing politico of running various articles to boost circulation, I'm not sure what's so horrible about those accusations. We've recently seen exactly those same accusations made of why publishers have a majority of conservative columnists in most American papers, and in fact, if Oliver made such an accusation, it is a very tame and very common accusation.

In general, I find Oliver much LESS kneejerk than many liberals, including Matthew.

As I said, I suspect Oliver's real crime for lucretius is posting a non feminist approved link to a story about sex.

Posted by Reality Check | October 1, 2007 11:57 AM

Howard,

John Kerry was a politician and candidate for higher elected office who made his previous naval service a centerpiece of his campaign. It was no more illegitimate to scrutinize his past service than it was for Dems to scrutinize Bush's previous Air National Guard service. Falsely accusing a general on active duty of lying and betraying his country is something else.

Incidentally, "US, Iraqi civilian deaths fall sharply", according to the A.P.

Posted by Fred | October 1, 2007 11:58 AM

"Of course, the major difference is that none of those earlier presidents had led us into a pointless, fruitless, useless war in their first terms while allowing a terror mastermind to go free."

Clinton led us into a pointless war or two (e.g., Kosovo, Somalia), though of course our casualties were negligible. He also let a terrorist mastermind named Osama bin Laden getaway.

Posted by Juan | October 1, 2007 12:03 PM

Juan:

Whether pointless or not, it was Bush 41 who led us into Somalia.

And for letting bin Laden get away, bush 43 is the all time chanmpion.

In 93, no one knew who bin Laden was or that he was even in Somalia.

Now Tora Bora, we all knew who he was and that he was there, and Bush 43 let him get away.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 12:15 PM

Fred, you wirte:

Falsely accusing a general on active duty of lying and betraying his country is something else.

I join you in your condemnation of Fox News and Col. David Hunt. But, fyi, they are of the RIght, not the Left.

Posted by Armando | October 1, 2007 12:19 PM

Hard to get all worked up as Armando tries to do about inconsequential nations we did quick interventions in or the fig leaf he tries to put on Clinton to excuse him as noble and pure while saying all other US interventions in the last 100 years without "declarations of war" are bad, bad, bad.

The main reason, of course, is that all those humanitarian interventions from McKinley onwards that happened without Congressional Vote happened without Congressional shitfits. Moreover, the President has acted at times to intervene or do actions that might trigger a war without months of leisurely Senate debate because of time constraints or belief that substantial numbers of US lives can be saved with an element of surprise...
And in recognition of that, Congress has accepted that Presidents might indeed have to fight a nuclear war or do actions that could trigger a war (JFKs blockade of Cuba from Soviet ships he was ready to fire on if they didn't comply).

Reagan's invasion of Grenada? FDR's invasion of Hondouras? Clintons invasion of Haiti with the French?
BFD.....
Pissass moans about pissant interventions Congress had no problem with the Executive calling the shots. Congress only starts to make noises like it cares if the Executive gets bogged down.
*****************

MY As best I can tell, the Army is dead-set against it. But the Army wouldn't be carrying the mission out anyway. It'd be shocking for the Air Force to suddenly come to appreciate the strategic limits of air power. In their minds, bombing Iran won't compound the error of Iraq; rather, it'll show the manifest benefits of doing things their way rather than getting bogged-down into an Army-style quagmire.

Pretty true. The AF and Navy still can't get over how the Army refused to plan for "after we take Bahgdad." Then became bogged down by accepting ridiculous rules of engagement and acquiescing to a series of horrendous decisions Bush, Rumsfeld, several generals like Sanchez, Abizaid made, and the calamity of Bremer and his CPA people.

As things stand, the Navy and AF can pretty well guarantee a 3-day demise of the Iranian Navy, AF, and a substantial part of the Republican Guard the Mullahs use for suppression and terror ops. And paralyzing transport between the main population centers of Iran where the people are, and the Gulf.

As the saying goes, the Navy and AF are "rested, tanned, and ready" - maybe 20% more lethal and effective than in 2001 - as they add more precision weapons and targeting intelligence.

They can't stop Iranian sleeper cells from Canada to Indonesia from inflicting light civilian casualties before they are rounded up and likely eliminated, even in "human rights" Europe. Or stop elements of Pasadran (Revolutionary Guard) from killing more of our guys in Iraq than the 300 or so they helped kill already. Those are risks. Acceptable ones, and acceptable casualties if Iran is knocked out of the terror and "destabilize the ME" business...
A higher consequence, but lower risk event, would be Iran launching chem and biowar attacks on Israel, US troops in the region, KSA.

But they whatever they would do in retaliation, they would do so only briefly - since the money and logistics support of Iran would no longer be usable. Same with Hezbollah.

I do like the idea of hitting the Mullahs and military assets more - than just "surgical strikes" on nuclear facilities...Iran ties nuke power, not weapons, to it's national pride and future. All groups in Iran. It would creat huge ill-will towards us. But after 28 years, the Mullah's support is very thin..and as long as Putin, KSA, and Turkey are OK with cleaning up the Mullahs, we should be good to go. And have good odds that with the Fundies defeated - we find a nation quite willing to join the world community again and not dissolve into suicidal Arab blood feuds like the Iraqis did. Contingent on them stopping any nuke bomb work and us figuring out how to give Iran security guarantees against their regional foes.

I would prefer that we wait until Bush is gone from office for better international support of ending the renegade regime in Iran now. . That Gen Patraeus has a chance finish his surge and to lay in at least three months of supply and ammo reserves so our troops in Iraq can be withdrawn into strongholds the Iranians can't attack if need be. Only strike when we want on those Iranians who go inside Iraq...

Posted by Chris Ford | October 1, 2007 12:20 PM

Attacking Iran would be illegal under the UN Charter, which only allows the US of military force in the case of self-defense against an imminent threat or when authorized by the UN Security Council. The UN Charter is a treaty, and, along with the Constitution, treaties are "the supreme law of the land" according to Article VI. (The invasion of Iraq was illegal for the same reasons.)

Posted by croatoan | October 1, 2007 12:22 PM

"Falsely accusing a general on active duty of lying and betraying his country is something else."

When did that happen? The last time I read about someone accusing a general on active duty of lying and betraying his country, it was an entirely accurate accusation leveled against Republican Party Operative David Petraus.

Posted by Tom | October 1, 2007 12:24 PM

We've already started down that path, with elements of the left legitimizing political attacks on active duty generals. The next step will be for the generals to push back politically in some fashion.

Oh come off the pretzel logic, Fred. It takes MoveOn to force generals into playing politics? Give us a break.

Generals have been criticized and exploited for political gain since the dawn of time. And generals have been playing politics since the dawn of time. Which is all very unsurprising, since war is always political.

Posted by novakant | October 1, 2007 12:31 PM

"Military revolts" Like the Russian one where democracy sort of prevailed. I don't think so.

In the popular imagination our military is more Gen James Mattoon Scott rather than Col. Jiggs Casey.

In our time, we get generals who meekly repeat White House talking points as if it were writ from Sinai. We don't do heroism here.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 1, 2007 12:31 PM

Howard - like your rules, fred: generals are supposed to be exempt from criticism. perhaps you could show us where in the constitution that one comes up: we'd really like to know.

It is in English Common Law and in our own laws. We do not want a politicized active duty military, a politicized judiciary, or a politicized civil service. So we have laws against a small junta of US generals offering their services instead of Republicans or Democrats to lead Florida or Louisiana . Or sitting Justices that say the courts exist to do one Party's bidding. Or a Post office or VA saying they will only serve Democrats.....

In return for that, we. The People...will respect that those and other groups stay out of politics by not attempting to politicize them through attacks on their integrity, honor, and character is discharging the duties of their offices - or - offering them legal bribes and other corruption for influence more acceptable in the political sphere.

and we'd really like to know why it is that when john kerry is savagely attacked from the crime of having a purple heart, that didn't constitute "legitimizing" a political attack on the military (oh, he wasn't a general, so it's ok?)

Because so many Lefties believe that identity politics involves all past, present, future people in a group that they cannot separate them in a common sense fashion. John Cornyn left the Texas Supreme Court to become a politician. He is not immune from personal attacks because he is now Sen Coryn, not Justice Cornyn, and his resume` , including his time in the judiciary, may be criticized.

Lefties find it especially hard when they loath the military so much that they can't get acceptance and dispensation from the public for at least rhetorically spitting on the active duty troops. And somehow think they should be allowed because former military people, like judges, and even VA doctors - do run for political office and DO get criticized or praised on their life record, including military service. Like Andrew Jackson, like Ike, like Bush, like Kerry, like Joe who is running for Mayor in Dorton who volunteered for Vietnam and never saw combat but had a ton of commendations...

Once again -

1. The American System does not accept attacks on the character, integrity, and honor or active duty Marines, judges, civil service. Their actions may be criticized as part of their executing duties of office, but not them personally.

2. We do that so we don't have politicized people in key governmental sectors.

3. Once out of those sectors, those people may be personally held to how good or bad their military, judicial record, GS job was done - as the English, American system has long allowed. Political attacks are sanctioned.

4. People that ignore those ground rules that violate the US system get slammed. The Bar will suspend the license of a lawyer who impugnes the integrity of a judge, a member of the public is cited for contempt. An appointee who messes with Civil Service and attempts to suborn them into partisan politics will be a quickly unappointed political appointee. People that slime the military through attacking a few active duty members honor, valor, integrity usually find themselves on the receiving end of major public scorn and rejection.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 1, 2007 12:53 PM

We'll see what the mood is if he hits Iran and they don't just stand there and take it.

Except that the smart strategy is for Iran to just stand there and take it, enjoying the tsunami of anti-US actions across the world. It'd be ironic if an attack on Iran led to US embassies elsewhere in the world being stormed.

The next step will be for the generals to push back politically in some fashion.

What's your model, Freddie-boy? Burma or Pakistan? The Musharraf comparison seems more apt of late.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 1, 2007 12:57 PM

Fred, john kerry received his purple heart for active-duty service. criticizing his purple heart is criticizing the entire military for its system of awarding medals. the gop 2004 convention engaged in this behavior - surely you found it offensive given your notion that the military is beyond criticism? (or, again, do i misunderstand and do you only believe that generals are beyond criticism: tell me, does your rule apply to admirals, too?)

Chris Ford, even by your debased standards, your 12:53 is completely meaningless as a piece of english prose. i'd respond to it if only there were something to respond to....

Posted by howard | October 1, 2007 12:58 PM

Those are risks. Acceptable ones, and acceptable casualties if Iran is knocked out of the terror and "destabilize the ME" business...

How casual one can be about casualties with a bag of Cheetos to hand. Any guess about how the Army will react, though, when the Air Force and Navy tell them they're disposable?

Why do you think there will be ANY US troops left alive in Iraq if Iran is brought all the way into the fight? How, exactly, will they be supplied, if the whole of the population of Iraq is hostile?

And what do you do after you bomb Iran? The US can't invade; there aren't enough troops, and the Iranians know that. Your line that the Iranians are somehow going to be converted into friends by being bombed is exactly the same thing we heard about Iraq. Worked great there, didn't it?

Face it. The American military has failed in Iraq. It will fail in Iran. No particular reflection against the American military of course; organizations generally fail at tasks that are impossible.

And wasn't it Betrayus himself who wrote the book proving that Iraq-type operations are futile unless there's a far higher ratio of troops to population than the US can ever hope to establish in Iraq, much less Iran?

Posted by sunsin | October 1, 2007 1:09 PM

Howard, as you are a fucking moron, that was an attempt to educate you on the English Common law tradition and it's American corollary regarding civil service, the judiciary, and military service not being politicized. Obviously, as a moron, it went over your head....Just as you still cannot figure out what Fred was saying about the distinction between Kerry the civilian politician and Kerry of 35 years ago.

======================
And, besides Howard being clueless, here's some more stuporiferous Lefty cant:

Attacking Iran would be illegal under the UN Charter, which only allows the US of military force in the case of self-defense against an imminent threat or when authorized by the UN Security Council. The UN Charter is a treaty, and, along with the Constitution, treaties are "the supreme law of the land" according to Article VI. (The invasion of Iraq was illegal for the same reasons.)
Posted by croatoan

118 interventions since 1945 and no "declared wars" authorized by the Security Council.....

Hmmmm....must not be that illegal...

Let me know when Congress or the "international law courts" decide to indict Bush I and Clinton for Panama, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo with no Security Council authorization. Or for Clinton NOT defying the "mighty" moral authority of the Security Council and stopping the Rwandan genocide.

And please, Lefties, stop whining about Darfur and how we should be there using military force or supporting African unified Forces there using force....Because China is blocking the "legality" of doing that in the UN. That should be enough for croatoan - China says no! Darfurans must die and the world do nothing unless China has a change of heart ....

Posted by Chris Ford | October 1, 2007 1:18 PM

A few things I haven't seen explored: Is the purpose of this little bombing project to ensconce the US in the region (with a clearly hostile terrorist state on its border)? That way, a Democratic successor would be forced to stay?

And exactly what are the chances that Iran will escalate limited airstrikes into a full war? Is there any clear evidence that Cheney and company looking at this as an opportunity to make that happen? What do we have then, a draft?

And forgive my ignorance, but why hasn't congress updated the carte blanche it gave Bush before the Iraq War? Could they revise it so the administration needs to go through congress before they could do airstrikes on a country other than Iraq?

Posted by JJ | October 1, 2007 1:19 PM

JJ: "Could they revise it so the administration needs to go through congress before they could do airstrikes on a country other than Iraq?"

They could, but they're not going to:

http://alovelypromise.blogspot.com/2007/08/attack-on-iran-and-congressional-war.html

Posted by Nell | October 1, 2007 1:33 PM

As best I can tell, the Army is dead-set against it. But the Army wouldn't be carrying the mission out anyway. It'd be shocking for the Air Force to suddenly come to appreciate the strategic limits of air power. In their minds, bombing Iran won't compound the error of Iraq; rather, it'll show the manifest benefits of doing things their way rather than getting bogged-down into an Army-style quagmire.

Take a look at Seymour Hersch's latest article on the subject in the New Yorker(<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?printable=true>). Apparently, the Navy is really hot to trot on this. The poor dears feel they've been left out of the fun so far.

That's what I like to see--U.S. foreign policy driven by a combination of ideological extremism, historical ignorance and interservice rivalries. The hits just keep on coming...

Posted by dolphy | October 1, 2007 1:35 PM

Chris Ford, i do love the invention of the "American System." tell me, where do i read about this "System?" Does it have an operating manual? Anyone do upgrades for it? Was it approved at the same time as the constitution?

as for Fred's point, if someone from the gop wanted to say "i don't think john kerry's service in vietnam is a relevant preparation for the presidency," fine. but that's not what they did: they wore purple bandaids to make fun of his actual service. like i say, he wasn't a general, so fred obviously doesn't care....

Posted by howard | October 1, 2007 1:59 PM

"1. The American System does not accept attacks on the character, integrity, and honor or active duty Marines, judges, civil service. Their actions may be criticized as part of their executing duties of office, but not them personally."

The problem is that Petraus willingly allowed himself to be used as a political tool by the Bush administration. An exclusive interview with Hugh Hewitt before his speech before Congress was an example of pandering to a political party. He purposely massaged the numbers to make them as rosy as possible, then didn't release the sources of those statistics. Further, he framed the troop withdrawl in March-July 2008 being due to results, and not operational requirements. No matter how bad the situation on the ground is, we have to draw down to pre-surge levels or increase troop rotations to a time greater than 15 months.

When a general allows himself to be used as a political tool by a party, they are no longer immune to attacks.

Posted by JordanT | October 1, 2007 2:09 PM

It really doesn't matter if the Army or Air Force is for or against bombing Iran. It matters if the CENTCOM leadership is for or against. If Admiral Fallon orders bombing, it will occur. If he doesn't it won't.

The good news is that Fallon, the CENTCOM commander, is on the record being against a war with Iran. The bad news is that he might change his tune if given a direct order from his Commander-in-Chief. Or he might be fired or resign. Though I'd love to see if there might (finally!) be a public firestorm in that latter case.

Posted by santamonicamr | October 1, 2007 3:27 PM

"And exactly what are the chances that Iran will escalate limited airstrikes into a full war?"

If I had to guess, approximately zero, since Iran's last experience with full scale war lost them what -- a half a million men? -- and resulted in a stalemate after 8 years. And that was against a conventional army we defeated handily in months '91 and in weeks in '03. A comprehensive bombing campaign (as opposed to a surgical strike on nuke facilities) would drastically constrain Iran's retaliatory options. We could destroy their gas refining capacity, idling their vehicles; we could destroy the roads leading into Iraq; we could destroy their missile batteries on the ground; etc. The Iranian regime would be worried about staying in power after their massive miscalculation backfired. They would probably need their surviving military formations to maintain order and deter a popular uprising.

Posted by Juan | October 1, 2007 3:55 PM

Unfortunately, those in the military are neither deep thinkers nor great ethicians. The vast majority don't bat an eyelash when asked to slaughter innocent Iraqi women and children now. Most Air Force personnel would turn Iran into a radioactive sheet of glass, if instructed to do so. The rest would be court-martialed and disappear immediately. That's why we should not worship the military -- they are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem!

Posted by The Conservative Deflator | October 1, 2007 4:01 PM

"Unfortunately, those in the military are neither deep thinkers nor great ethicians."

The word is "ethicist", dipshit.

Posted by Juan | October 1, 2007 4:08 PM

We should absolutely NOT be hoping for a full scale revolt of the military against civilian authority. Down that path lies madness, bad precedent for future action, and Bananna Republic status for the US.

Well put - but begs the question of what, if anything we can do to prevent either such a revolt or rampant Presidential action.

And two centuries of experience tell us that - as a practical matter - there is little Congress can actually do to prevent a President from committing standing armed forces and ginning up some sort of legal argument to have justified it.

So, really, what we must recognize is that to the extent that the Congress has authorized and financed a standing army, it has already thereby delegated to the President the capacity to act unilaterally and that subsequent debates over his authority amount to efforts to shut the proverbial door after the horse has already left.

Accordingly, serious efforts to restrict the executive's rampant overuse of the Commander in Chief function must feature the massive downsizing of the standing military. Historically, this is consistent with American tradition, which had a de minimus standing military until WWII.

Despite this strategy's firm roots in American tradition, the political climate of recent decades indicates that America has developed a long term taste for a large standing military and that its political system will not voluntarily downsize the military.

However because of the various deficits, means nevertheless exist to coerce this downsizing. The current state of the dollar, the various debt problems, rising oil prices, and other such factors portend that the IMF'ing of the United States. As part of this IMF'ing, programs to require the scuttling of aircraft carriers, the closing of arms factories, the limiting of defense appropriations to amounts proportionate to those authorized by - say - various European states, should be featured.

All of this should effect a long overdue correction of the United States' overstated executive. And this sort of thing will have to happen because - after all - he who pays the piper does call the tune.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | October 1, 2007 4:42 PM

The word is "ethicist", dipshit.

ever heard of the word "synonymous", ignoramus?

Posted by novakant | October 1, 2007 4:48 PM

"It'd be ironic if an attack on Iran led to US embassies elsewhere in the world being stormed."

Wishing won't make it so, pseudonymous.

"What's your model, Freddie-boy? Burma or Pakistan? The Musharraf comparison seems more apt of late."

Neither, pseudo. But if active duty military officers are going to now be subject to political attacks for implementing the policies they have been ordered to implement by elected politicians, I think the chances of them not responding in some way are slim. Exactly what form that will take, I don't know, but it's worth remembering that tens of thousands of military officers are now relatively flush with cash after a few years of collecting tax-free pay and retention bonuses in war zones. Perhaps some of this money will find its way into a PAC in the next election cycle. Perhaps in response Dems will start applying party loyalty litmus tests to generals up for Congressional confirmation. Little baby steps down the slippery slope toward the Latin Americanization of the U.S. military.

Posted by Fred | October 1, 2007 4:50 PM

What we just saw with Iraq, though, is that according to the media, if Democrats vote for a funded withdrawal of troops, and then Bush vetoes those funds and demands that Democrats give him a blank check, then it would be a failure to "support the troops" for Democrats to refuse to cave to this demand.

I can't blame the media for this one. Congressional Democrats have been using this line as an excuse for months now. There hasn't been any attempt by the leadership to make the counter argument. The few Senators who do make this argument are ridiculed and reprimanded by their own party. And when signing the Iraq supplemental, Reid and Pelosi told us directly that they weren't willing to play roulette with the lives of our soldiers.

Why should the media be expected to make a case that the Democrats won't?

Posted by Jinchi | October 1, 2007 5:39 PM

Boy Juan is a fount of misinformation. The 911 commission discredited that stuff about Clinton being offered Osama years ago. Try to keep up.

Second thing: "The Iranian regime would be worried about staying in power after their massive miscalculation backfired. They would probably need their surviving military formations to maintain order and deter a popular uprising."

Yeah, attacks by the US would lead to a popular uprising. You were one of the people who said we'd be greeted with flowers and candy in Iraq too, right? Iran isn't going to launch an open war with the US even if attacked. They're going to be smarter and use their allies in Iraq, who include all the major Shiite players in the gov't. Why would they stupidly follow what Bush would expect them to do?

Posted by SteveH | October 1, 2007 5:51 PM

Hersh seems to think Cheney has sold the Navy on the air raids because they feel like they're being left out the Iraq War and consequently need to justify their big budget aircraft carriers.

Posted by markg8 | October 1, 2007 6:06 PM

"Falsely accusing a general on active duty of lying and betraying his country is something else."

What is false about it? That's what he did. Not only that, he did it because he has political aspirations as well as blue nosing the politicians in power for his career.

Petraeus is an asshole. He deserved not just criticism, he deserves to be stripped of rank, reduced to Private and sent to Leavenworth military prison.

Fuck him.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 8:59 PM

"That Gen Patraeus has a chance finish his surge and to lay in at least three months of supply and ammo reserves so our troops in Iraq can be withdrawn into strongholds the Iranians can't attack if need be."

Chris Ford, military genius!

Ever heard of missiles, moron? Iran has every single base in Iraq mapped out with precise GPS coordinates. Sure, bog our troops down in bases they can't come out of without being hit by the Shia militia!

Pure genius.

Nitwit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 9:02 PM

"As things stand, the Navy and AF can pretty well guarantee a 3-day demise of the Iranian Navy, AF, and a substantial part of the Republican Guard the Mullahs use for suppression and terror ops. And paralyzing transport between the main population centers of Iran where the people are, and the Gulf."

Bullshit. Not even remotely true. While the Iranian Navy and Air Force are irrelevant - except for the thousand small craft loaded with anti-ship missiles and mines who WILL inflict casualties on the US Navy - the IRGC and the conventional Iranian military will survive mostly intact any US bombardment. Their command and control facilities may or may not be knocked out since it's unclear how much of that has been moved underground.

None of that is relevant, however, to the long-term conduct of the war - just as the "shock and awe" of the Iraq war is irrelevant to the resulting four years of insurgency.

If the Iranians are dumb enough to do the same sort of mass attacks they tried in the Iraq war, they will take horrendous casualties and fail. All the evidence suggests however that the Iranians know such tactics will not work against the US, as they did not work against the Iraqis. So they will not use them - they will use asymmetrical and 4th Gen War strategy and tactics.

Nitwit Ford has no clue about the possibilities for the Iranians to hand the US its head in the ME over the next ten years.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 9:09 PM

"And exactly what are the chances that Iran will escalate limited airstrikes into a full war?"

If I had to guess, approximately zero, since Iran's last experience with full scale war lost them what -- a half a million men? -- and resulted in a stalemate after 8 years. And that was against a conventional army we defeated handily in months '91 and in weeks in '03."

Juan is another nitwit who can't comprehend that Iran by all accounts appears to have learned from all those experiences.

"A comprehensive bombing campaign (as opposed to a surgical strike on nuke facilities) would drastically constrain Iran's retaliatory options. We could destroy their gas refining capacity, idling their vehicles; we could destroy the roads leading into Iraq; we could destroy their missile batteries on the ground; etc."

None of which was successful in Yugoslavia and none of which was particularly successful in Iraq in either the 91 or 2003 wars. While the civilian infrastructure will clearly be massively disrupted in both places, the military infrastructure remained functional until ground action (in 2003) and bribes to the Iraqi generals allowed the US to defeat the Iraqi conventional military.

The Iran situation will be entirely different. There are no Iranian generals to bribe. There is limited intelligence on Iranian capabilities and force deployment. Iran has been preparing for a US attack for probably the last several years. They have learned that conventional militaries are useless against the US. They will employ asymmetrical war and guerrilla war on the ground against the US in Iraq and lure the US ground forces into Iran for more of the same.

Destroy the roads leading into Iraq? What does it matter? By all accounts, they have scores of thousands of agents in Iraq already (unless they really did pull them out recently as Petraeus suggested - irrelevant, they can just as easily sneak back in.) They have the Iraqi Shia on their side - scores of thousands of them. al-Sadr's forces alone number maybe 20,000 or more and al-Sadr has already said his militia will support Iran against the US. The Badr forces will, too, most likely - and there are even more of them.

Not to mention the Sunni insurgency who will step up attacks on the US to drive them out.

That's at least 50-100,000 Iraqi insurgents and militia against the US, plus 20-50,000 Iranian agents.

The result - the LOSS - not the defeat, the LOSS - of US forces in Iraq within six months of an attack on Iran. The US forces within ninety days will be totally out of food, water, fuel and ammo and be forced to evacuate the country by way of Kurdistan and Turkey - the only countries that will give them passage not under fire.

The only way the US can avoid this fate is by wholesale slaughter of Iraqis using gunships, aerial bombardment, and massacres of rioting Iraqis by massed US formations. That will go over well...

If the US does manage to get troops into Iran - either from the Straits or via the Iraqi border - Iran will have guerrilla forces in depth to throw at them - including an estimated one to six MILLION man militia - and if it isn't six million now, it will be after the US attacks. Iran has a massive number of young, military age men who will be happy to kill US troops once the US kills their relatives with Juan's air bombardments.

Juan is a fucking idiot, like the rest of the morons who post on these matters without the slightest comprehension of how wars operate these days.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 9:24 PM

As retired exploration geologist that worked in areas with conflicting safety issues, where your only defense was "good sound judgement, avoid insulting, respect diversity, understand your host - peolpe and country, religious isssues are important". Can you or others readers tell me why we pursuit such erroneous international policies?? Please let me know as the unwise prepare new belicose ventures toward Iran... Thanks
Ben RRR

Posted by Ben R. Rodriguez MS | October 1, 2007 10:17 PM

As retired exploration geologist that worked in areas with conflicting safety issues, where your only defense was "good sound judgement, avoid insulting, respect diversity, understand your host - peolpe and country, religious isssues are important". Can you or others readers tell me why we pursuit such erroneous international policies?? Please let me know as the unwise prepare new belicose ventures toward Iran... Thanks
Ben RRR

Posted by Ben R. Rodriguez MS | October 1, 2007 10:18 PM

By the way, Matt, no comment on Sy Hersh's new article on the preparations for war with Iran?

Some pretty damning statements in there that it really is on, even if Hersh admits that Bush hasn't issued "the order" yet (as far as he or his contacts know, anyway.)

For those who haven't read it:

Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 1, 2007 10:33 PM

Why does anyone bother responding to Chris Ford?

Posted by hm | October 1, 2007 11:00 PM

"If the President does it, it cannot be illegal"

It's not a view I agree with, but there is a commonly held and self-consistent view that explains how, without hypocrisy, the Republican Congress at the time could be willing to impeach Clinton over the Lewinsky affair, but not over Bosnia and Kossova.

At its most extreme expression, the Unitary Executive theory, this view holds that there really can be no such thing as malfeasance in office for the President of the United States. He's the Decider, the person on whose desk the buck stops, and as the person solely responsible for this government, he can grant himself dispensation to do whatever needs to be done to get the nation's business done. There is nothing, no putative law-breaking, that a Presidential Finding cannot make as legal as church on Sunday, as long as the action in question is done to further a governmental function.

If you follow this theory, and not just in the categorically stated Yoo version, but even in its unstated form as the conventional wisdom, then impeachment of the President is only legitimate over his personal actions, not his official actions. The President, by this theory, is the only one who can judge the legitimacy of his offical actions. There can be no legitimate accountability to the Congress over his official actions, no matter how weighty or consequential, such as a war improperly inititated. The Congress can indeed hold hearings and make speeches to bring to light and embarrass the president over such arguable lapses in his judgment in starting a war, and the Republicans were very ready to do that to Clinton over Bosnia nad Kossovo. But the Congress, in this theory, is perfectly free to act as the guardian of public morals, and vindicate with impeachment the idea that no man is above the law, if the President is accused of any ordinary, personal crime, such as lying about an adulterous affair, that does not involve official conduct.

This is, of course, the exact reverse of what both common sense and the Consitution say on the subject, but when has that stopped them?

Posted by Glen Tomkins | October 1, 2007 11:07 PM