Before the U.S. invasion in 2003, warnings about an insurgency developing in Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s regime fell were ignored by the Bush administration. Lacking training in counterinsurgency operations, U.S. armed forces initially used aggressive offensive tactics employing heavy firepower and ignored the two fundamental principles of counterinsurgency operations: create a secure environment for the […]
New START: One year later
by Kingston Reif Published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Online on February 2, 2012 Article summary below; read the full text online February 5 marks the one-year anniversary of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty’s (New START) entry into force. Signed by the United States and Russia in April 2010, New START caps each […]
A Little Bill to Support Israel against Iran Poses a Serious Risk
A small number of House Republicans are threatening to undermine U.S. strategy in Iran by encouraging military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
On May 23, 2011, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX)) introduced House Resolution 271, a bill expressing support for “the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty…[and the use] all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.” To date 44 Republicans have co-sponsored the bill. It has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
This is not the first time the U.S. House and Senate have expressed such support for Israeli military strikes. In 2007, the House put forth a similar bill expressing support for Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Syria occurring in 2007 and in Iraq in 1981, but that bill expressed support after Israel’s strikes, not before.
Rep. Gohmert’s 2011 bill is vague and dangerous. The bill states that “if no other peaceful solutions can be found within a reasonable time” strikes are acceptable, but “reasonable time” is not defined. Libya pursued a nuclear weapons program for 25 years before finally abandoning it in 2004. Since no solution has yet been found to the Iranian nuclear impasse, does that mean military action is viable now?
Despite the threat Iran poses, the argument for using military force against Iran has never been compelling, as our own Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Laicie Olson documented last year. Military and foreign policy experts have warned that strikes on nuclear facilities can be counter-productive for non-proliferation efforts. According to the Deulfer Report by the Iraq Study Group and reports by some Iraqi nuclear scientists, the Israeli strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 encouraged Saddam to ramp up its nuclear weapons program and work more secretively.
In Iran, “[i]t’s possible [a strike] could be used to play to nationalist tendencies,” General Petraeus told reporters early last year. Iran’s rulers are divided over whether to build nuclear weapons, especially because they do not know if the public will accept the costs – sanctions and international isolation. Were Israel to strike Iran’s facilities, it could unify the leadership and rally the public in support of an Iranian bomb.
Pursuit of this bill is also a challenge to regional U.S. foreign policy. Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in March and April 2011 showed a significant decline in U.S. popularity among most Arab publics, a reversal of the increase that followed President Obama’s election. As the Arab Spring removes American allies, such as in Egypt and Yemen, there is concern that the U.S. will lose support and influence in the Middle East.
Internationally, the Obama administration’s dual track approach of diplomatic engagement and pressure has strengthened the U.S. hand against Iran and led to international support for the toughest ever sanctions against Tehran. Rep. Gohmert’s bill undermines diligent Pentagon efforts to dissuade Israel from a military attack and the growing international support for tougher non-military measures against Iran.
Additionally, a simulation of an Israeli strike on Iran conducted by the Brookings Institution demonstrated that military strike, even if conducted by Israel, would have direct consequences for the U.S. Such an attack would likely create a conflict that engulfs the region and draws in the U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, warned that a military attack on Iran would be as destabilizing as Iran becoming a nuclear state. Moreover, the Brookings simulation found that the strike would merely set the Iranian nuclear program back, not destroy it.
Considering the costs of such strikes, Gohmert’s bill is a brash and shortsighted proposal. If the intent is to show public support for Israel, it is possible to do so without offering U.S. support for a potentially illegal and certainly a disastrous military attack on Iran. Gohmert’s bill even lacks the support of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. Hopefully, Israel will show restraint and this bill will go the way of its 2010 predecessor, quietly disappearing at the door of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Estimated Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding FY2001-FY2012
By the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that total US spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will surpass $1.4 trillion. This total includes approximately $823 billion for operations in Iraq and $557 billion for operations in Afghanistan. Funding for the war in Iraq has decreased significantly […]
Official Discomfort with Afghanistan War?
By: John Isaacs
While key Administration officials continue to vigorously support the war in Afghanistan, there appears to be a less-than-enthusiastic larger view about the war.
Take Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In his recent speech at West Point, he pointed out:
“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”
That does not sound like a high level official who thinks that the United States military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq were bang up good ideas. Gates is not advocating getting out; he just does not think getting in was smart.
This skepticism was amplified at a February 17, 2011 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. There, Admiral Michael Mullen (USN), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not make the situation in Afghanistan sound exactly rosy.
Mullen thinks that the military situation in Afghanistan is going well: “On the military side, Senator McCain, I’m probably — I’m more optimistic than I’ve been.” [unofficial transcript]
The other aspects of the war are not so hot.
“But on the political side, the economic side, I — it’s — at least from my perspective, it looks worse than it has in a long time. So I share your concern. I share — I — the vector is going in the wrong direction overall for the country. We’re very unpopular there. You’ve seen that. It gets highlighted in each crisis, whether — I mean, we provided extraordinary support for the floods last year — we the military. And then that registers in a — in a popular way shortly. You have an incident like the one we’re going through right now, and our popularity is back down in very small numbers.”
Mullen wants to continue prosecuting the war. Neither he nor Gates has joined the “out now” caucus. But for Mullen, two out of three basic indicators of the war – economic and political progress – are in the toilet.
Gates did endorse the withdrawal dates put forward by the Obama Administration in the same hearing:
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI):Secretary, you indicated that we are on track to end the presence of our combat troops in Iraq by the end of this year, as decided upon by President Bush. Do you continue to support that decision?
Sec. Gates: Yes, I do.
Levin: And are you planning to begin reductions of our troops in Afghanistan by July of this year, as ordered by President Obama, with the pace to be determined — of the reductions determined by conditions on the ground? And do you support that decision?
Gates: Yes, sir.
Levin: And can you tell us why?
Gates: Well, frankly, this was the most difficult part of the Afghan strategy going forward for me to come to support. I steadfastly — as some on this committee will remember — steadfastly opposed any deadlines in Iraq, and so came to this with a certain skepticism.
But I also realized that there is a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan in this respect. The truth of the matter is, the Iraqis want us out of the country as quickly as possible. On the other hand, the Afghans — at least, a certain number of them — would like us to stay forever. They live in a very dangerous neighborhood, and having U.S. forces there to support them and help them, often in the place of their own troops, is something that they would like to see. And so it seemed to me that we needed to do something that would grab the attention of the Afghan leadership and bring a sense of urgency to them of the need for them to step up to the plate to take ownership of the war and to recruit their own young men to fight.
