It is hard to sift out the blind faith in U.S. military power from the facts. It is a fact that the US military is one of the if not the most well trained and lethal combat forces in the world. Furthermore, direct confrontation with a conventional army is what our military has trained for and planned for for years. I remember the eve of the fdirst Gulf War, when the media was touting the Iraqi army as a serious threat to our army. In the end, the Iraqi army, with heavy equipment and armor from the sixties and no air cover or surface-to-air missle cover to speak of, was completely overpowered.

But...

A war with Iran would be a different situation. I think what Mr. Conanson is saying is, in general, correct, if not perfectly militarily accurate. If we were to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, it wouldn't be a quick strike; it would be intense bombing at at least 2-4 different strikes, and no-one can honestly say for certain that the Iranians would refrain from striking back across the Iran-Iraq border.

If they did, what would happen next? Our army is better trained and more well equipped than the Iranian army, but right now, our army is busy helping to keep things orderly in Iraq. an Iranian invasion would provide us with a Hobbes choice; with a total of 150,000 or so troops to work with, how many would we decide to redeploy away from their duties in Iraq to deal with the Iranian incursion? We could bring more troops to the region over time, but the situation would be very dangerous. Our Air Force is very effective and powerful, but it is not a Deus Ex Machina.

Striking at Iran would be very dangerous. Throughout history, great many military catasrophies have befallen invincible armies. The gods of war do not smile on unbridled optimism.

Those armchair neo-cons who are so infatuated with Junior's imperial presidency might want to consider this: it was a basic tenet of ancient Roman policy to bring any war to a successful conclusion before starting a new war against a new enemy. It's sort of like the Australians say, "One job at a time, every job a success." Three years ago, many of us tried to point out that it might be a good idea to capture bin Laden and remove the threat from al-Qaeda before embarking on any new adventures, no matter how many WMDs and reconstituted nuclear weapons Saddam Hussein didn't have. It is still more crucial that the U.S. not start yet another war of choice at this time in Iran.

Of course, our warnings were scornfully rejected by the republicans three years ago, just as our advice will certainly be scorned again today. We were told, and will be told again now, that the U.S. is perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, or whatever. But then, WE assumed that military success was the goal. If the real goal is something else, such as driving up the price of oil, or letting Junior strut around as a "wartime president", or crusading against Islam and bringing about the fire and brimstone of the Christian end-of-days, then the so-called republicans hardly need our advice, and are certain to meet with the same success in Iran that they have encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan.

vercingetorix links to http://www.harpers.org/BuriedTruths.html, an article which quotes an organization called the Defense Department Science Board:

Finally, it is entirely unclear whether even such a catastrophic blast would, as the Science Board claims, "enable disablement" of an installation.

"Enable disablement"? These people want not only to build better bombs; apparently, they are keen on murdering the English language, too.

They are perfectly rational. The Administration and the GOP will do anything, including sacrificing thousand of lives, to remain in power. This Administration has been, from day one, about consolidating a GOP majority, at any costs. This is an Administration that is only concerned by politics, not policies. Why should we expect any of these people to modify their behavior?

The Administration lied us into a war with Iraq. They are trying to lie us now into a war with Iran. It may work. It is very easy to whip up people into a frenzy by appealing to their primal fears.

The consequences of a war with Iran would indeed be catastrophic. But the instigators in the Admoinistration will never suffer the consequences. Look at Wolwofitz, one of the main architects of the war in Iraq, who said that the U.S. would be welcome with flowers and candy. He is now running the World Bank.

We are doomed. Short of a public revolt, the Bush Administration will remain in place until 2008, and possibly beyond. I would not put it past the current cabal running the country to do away with Presidential term limits.

Maybe Bush can escape history. If he can get a good nuclear war going, there won't be any future generations to view us with honor or dishonor.

I wonder if that's the plan?

If we are going to speculate about many ways attacking Iran can backfire, we need to discuss the downside of NOT attacking Iran. Suppose they go ahead and get the bomb. Now it is possible (maybe even probable) that the seriousness of their position will sober their rehetoric, a la Pakistan and India. Or maybe some form of MAD will deter them from using their weapon.

What if it doesn't? What will we do if we wake up some day in 2010 and Tel Aviv (or NYC) has been destroyed? What would be the implications of any reaction to this attack across the rest of the Middle East?

The difficult terrain, stretched resources, insurgencies, will still exist, and any struggle might be just as bad as previous letter writers have described. We would be in a more morally-defensible position, since we would be reacting rather than preempting. On the other hand, the cost of suffering the first strike would be high.

I am not pushing any one answer to this dilemma here, but we need to look at all of the possible outcomes of our action or nonaction.