The only question is then what becomes the new "good" war that we have to prepare for--and of course preparing for that conflict requires us to get out of the "bad" war.
Well folks, we have a winner!
If American interests require the prevention of an Iranian bomb, then major combat operations in Afghanistan must end before the moment to decide on Iran is at hand. That’s not the track we’re now on. General McChrystal’s plan is a stop-loss effort that cannot achieve a level playing field upon which to drive a new Afghan diplomacy, let alone achieve anything remotely resembling victory in three years or less.
There are only two alternatives to preserve a credible military option, and hence a credible diplomacy, with regard to Iran: accept defeat in Afghanistan, whatever we may call it, and leave; or surge militarily to reverse the perception of Taliban ascendancy, and then drive a new political arrangement there to end the war within the next 18-24 months.
On the bright side, the author at least would prefer to win, but the keys to the post are we have to get out of Afghanistan to confront the "real" threat--Iran. And since winning quickly isn't an option, for those who think this way they will--perhaps visibly saddened by the choice they are "forced" to make given the "facts" they see--we'll have to lose the Afghanistan war. They may even wipe away a visible tear when they say we must retreat from Afghanistan.
The very premise of needing to disengage from Afghanistan to confront Iran is wrong.
One, we have plenty of air and naval power to confront Iran. We simply aren't using that much of either to fight in Afghanistan or hold gains in Iraq.
Two, if it is ground forces we need, is the author really saying we need to withdraw ground troops from Afghanistan in order to deploy them to a position adjacent to Iran? If so, look at a map. Afghanistan just happens to be adjacent to Iran!
And the other major avenue to invade by land (to pose a credible military option as the author wants) is Iraq. So logically, troops withdrawn from Afghanistan would need to go to Iraq. But if we want to maintain the threat to invade Iran from Iraqi territory, why not just postpone our withdrawal of combat brigades from Iraq? Let's chat with the Iraqi government about that option, eh? I mean, you'd think about that if you really want to maintain a credible military option against Iran.
And if we're not going to keep ground forces in Iraq, just where do the withdrawn forces from Afghanistan go to maintain a credible military option against Iran? Okinawa?
Face it, we don't lack a credible military option against Iran.
What we lack is credibility that we would ever use our military power to stop Iran. And I don't know if anything we can do will convince Iran's rulers that we will use force to stop them if they don't stop pursuing nuclear weapons.
Really, destroying two hostile regimes to their west and east in the last eight years--where we have close to 200,000 military personnel on the ground now, not to mention the forces we have in the region and at sea around them--has made no impression on the Iranian mullahs.
We already have the air and naval power to level their military. We have lots of nukes ourselves. What more could we do or how much more power must we concentrate around Iran to convince the mullahs we are serious?
It's almost like the mullahs believe God is on their side and that divine intervention makes our Earthly power irrelevant.
But hope springs eternal here among some who pride themselves as being a member of the reality-based community. Their pursuit of the new "good" war so we can get out of the now "bad" war in Afghanistan has identified a candidate for the new "good" war--Iran.
Of course, the seeds for a future twist are present. Note the qualifier--"if American interests require the prevention of an Iranian bomb," we'll need to pivot away from Afghanistan to face Iran. If we do that pivot, the big-brained set will surely conclude that the question of "if" is to be answered in the negative. Heck, who worries about Iran having nukes, eh? Let's focus on North Korea! Or Burma! Or Venezuela! Or Palestine! That's always a favorite task, eh? Wasn't it once considered a fact that we had to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue before doing anything about Saddam?
But still, that's for a future nuance festival to figure out. For now, congratulations all around to Nuanced-Americans for finally settling on a new good cop/bad cop paradigm!
