By George H. Wittman on 2.7.07 @ 12:08AM
The U.S. has been cringing and wobbling on the Middle East.
A new phenomenon is growing. An amalgam of the cringing left and
wobbly right have decided that the United States remains the
aggressor in Iraq and that may soon spill over into Iran.
Apparently this unholy alliance can't tell the difference between
offense and defense.
The U.S. is now and has been on the defensive since 9/11.
Admittedly the American and coalition forces briefly were
tactically on the offense when they successfully invaded Iraq and
destroyed Saddam Hussein's grip on power. What has followed
afterward has been purely defensive action.
If the Marines had been truly on the offensive in Falluja, they
would have used the same tactics so effective in World War II
against the Japanese at Iwo Jima and elsewhere. Napalm followed by
flame-throwers and Bangalore torpedoes would have flattened all
resistance in that Sunni and foreign fighters' stronghold. Similar
devastating offensive tactics would have been used where necessary
throughout Iraq to pacify insurgent centers.
That's the way to take a dug-in defended position, and it is
truly offensive action in the clearest and most effective form. To
have our troops manning sandbagged road blocks to avoid being
killed by snipers and suicide bombers or our recon patrols and
supply convoys the target of IED's are strictly defensive
operations. This form of military activity in no way can be
characterized as encouraging offensive spillover to Iran.
The attempt to connect American presence in Iraq to a grand
Middle East plan that includes the destruction of Iran's nuclear
capability seems to have taken a twisted turn so as to scare the
American public already preparing for a new president in 2008. The
corkscrew logic suggests that the best defense for the United
States against Iran's nuclear weapon development is swiftly to
remove our forces as much and as far as possible from the Middle
East.
This thesis is predicated on Iranian nuclear ambitions ending at
the time of the imminent demise of the dastardly Ahmahdinejad. This
change will come about sooner, it is argued, if the Americans would
only get out of Iraq -- and preferably the entire region -- as soon
as possible. American military presence in the Middle East is
deemed to carry an intrinsic offensive character and thus threatens
the peace-loving Persians.
In other words the "good guys" in Iran will kick out the "bad
guys" if Washington will just carry on with diplomatic negotiations
and refrain from threatening Tehran with loss of their nuclear
weapon development sites. Just one thing is forgotten: Iran's
nuclear ambitions began way back in the days of the Shah. It was he
who originally decided that Iran would have to match India and
Pakistan's nuclear weapon and missile programs.
The Gulf States quivered with fear over the growth of Persian
military and naval power as early as the seventies. A temporary ban
on nuclear development of all kinds occurred after the clerical
revolution, but that was rescinded in the late eighties long before
Ahmadinejad came into power. He just has been more aggressive in
Iran's ambitions and open defiance of United Nations
supervision.
In order for diplomatic and economic pressure to work on Iran,
it must be backed up by a credible military threat. That's what the
two carrier battle groups in and around the Persian Gulf and
Arabian Sea provide -- not the U.S. ground forces in Iraq.
The Iranian plan for the acquisition of nuclear weapons is not
for defensive purposes. On the contrary, the only utility of these
weapons would be offensive in nature. Iran's sole regional rival
from whom it might have feared attack was Iraq, and that potential
no longer exists.
The whining of the cringers and wobblers is simply an effort
once again to pretend a problem only exists because the United
States is willing to stand up and challenge. The U.S. is made to
appear the aggressive party in the Middle East while the Iranian
ruling clique is peaceful and with no offensive aims, in spite of
its creation and guidance of Hezbollah, aid to Hamas, and arming of
anti-American Shia militias in Iraq.
Nuclear weapon proliferation by America-hating,
terror-supporting regimes, such as Iran, must be blocked by all
means necessary -- diplomatic, economic, political and military, if
necessary. That is the only way to defend against Iranian ambitions
in the Middle East. There is no room to wobble on this.
topics:
Military, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, United Nations, Nuclear Weapons
