There is an op-ed in the Washington Post from Michael Vickers urging “limited U. S. military strikes” against Iran:
Just as in 1987 and 1988, Iran’s most recent attacks on U.S. military aircraft and international shipping cannot go unanswered. The United States must ensure its ability to operate over Yemen (where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula still plots against the United States and American interests around the world) and in international airspace and sea lanes. The United States must also ensure the free flow of goods in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of the world’s seaborne oil transits.
Iran’s drone shoot-down on Thursday wasn’t accidental or the result of a rogue operator, as Trump has suggested. The Iranians fired a missile at another U.S. drone a week ago but missed. Senior Iranian officials have not only acknowledged their successful attack on our Global Hawk but have also celebrated it.
Shooting down unmanned aircraft, moreover, is every bit as much an act of aggression as firing on manned aircraft. As automation advances, military force structures are increasingly unmanned, and unmanned systems — whether in space, in the air, on land, or on or under the sea — must be protected and defended.
The Trump administration should respond to these recent attacks with strikes of its own on Iranian and Houthi air-defense assets, offensive missile systems and Revolutionary Guard Corps bases. A measured but firm response is what is required. It needn’t rise even to the level of the Reagan administration’s successful counter to Iran’s Tanker War, but it must impose sufficient costs to make Iran think twice about doing this again.
Well, that didn’t take long. Have we ever actually deterred the Iranian government? Or was the Iranian government reluctant to escalate the conflict because it had just concluded a punishing but indecisive war against Iraq and didn’t want to be fighting on two fronts? How did that deterrent impede Iran from killing hundreds of Americans in Iraq, at least 15% of the total killed there?
Have I ever outlined the stages of newspaper editorial conviction for you? The lowest level is “Opposed”. That’s when an editorial against doing something. Then there’s “Not Convinced”. That’s when an op-ed is published and it’s accompanied by another op-ed opposing whatever position the op-ed advocated. After that there’s “Convinced”. That’s when an op-ed appears and the paper doesn’t contradict it, either with an opposing op-ed or editorial.
Finally, there’s “In Support”. That’s when the paper produces an editorial advocating a course of action. Unless an op-ed or editorial appears by the end of the day opposing war with Iran, put the WaPo down as “Convinced”.
While violence is not the best answer, it is often the most effective. The problem is that it takes a lot of it, and few people are willing to apply the amount necessary to change behavior.
If the Iranian leadership is willing to use violence against their own people, I doubt that a few missiles will deter them, and if a few missiles are able to deter them, they were not really a threat.
To-date, the US has not been able to deter the Taliban, and there has been quite a lot of violence applied. I am guessing that it will take a lot more to bring the Iranians “to heel”.
You cannot deter the government of a country that does not care about its people. It’s why we can deter neither China nor Iran. The leadership of both countries disdains the ordinary people.
Should be common knowledge that the WaPo supports the neocon preferences.
Steve
You can deter the government of a country by going after its leaders. what happened to Qadaffi after the Berlin nightclub bombing was a good example of that. You can also go after their finances. They may not give a damn about their people, but their skin and the bank accounts they are very protective of. Even if they think the coming of the last Imam is at hand.
I am foregoing comment until the situation plays out. Nobody knows what is going on, and that’s on purpose.
“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” ~ Winston Churchill.
My view is that we should have a predisposition against war and if you’re in a position to make the sort of calculations those recommending war are, you should not go to war. It should not be subject to cost-benefit analysis.