Lincoln, Ike, a dead Prussian & Iran

I have been “jonesing” to write about our current war with Iran. We’re still at sea, I have oodles of time on my hands, and the wonders of modern digital communications mean I can still be inundated with current information and commentary. But I waited, and waited. Why? Because first-takes are often the worst takes, war reporting is often just wrong (Clausewitz–that dead Prussian, called it the “fog of war”), and most of the commentary I have read thus far proceeds from an underlying political premise to a hasty conclusion. Of two stripes, both reminiscent of Trump Devotion/Derangement Syndrome (TD2S):

• Trump is a mastermind playing 4D chess (!?!) and all this will come out great for America, or
• Trump is an idiot and therefore the US is headed for a devastating failure, a quagmire, or both. And he only did it because (1) Putin told him to, (2) to distract from the Epstein files, or (3) because he suffers from third stage syphilis. No kidding. I have seen all three, sometimes in combination.

Now before I go any further, let me be clear: I haven’t made up my mind whether this particular Iran campaign is a good idea. It is simply too early to tell. Bad ideas can have good outcomes, and vice versa. But I can assure you this: if you have made up your mind already, it’s because you fell into one of the two mindsets described above. Because there is not enough evidence to do otherwise.

Which is not to say there are not criticisms (valid or otherwise) based on what we know thus far. And here they are:

“Trump has engaged in a war of choice.”

I regret to inform you that war always requires at least two parties, and both sides must opt “in.” If one doesn’t, the other wins by default. When the rebels shelled Fort Sumter, Lincoln had the choice to ignore them and let the South “go its own way” (cue Fleetwood Mac). Many of his advisors actually counselled him to do so, as most realized what a bloody mess it would be. He chose to resist. If you think there is something unique about the choice Trump just made, you’re wrong. It happens all the time. Yes, most Presidents provide much more explanation to the country before going into war, and what explanation Trump has provided has been inconsistent (I’m being diplomatic to a fault here, but more on that later). So complain about the explanation, but drop the “choice” argument. It only sounds impressive if you know nothing about war, politics, etc.

“This is an illegal war.”

Usually followed by reference to the War Powers Act (WPA). Very simply, no President has followed the WPA as it was passed by Congress since it was passed by Congress (overriding a Nixon veto). Why not? It is a law without any consequences. Commit treason, and you can look up the penalty. Violate the War Powers Act, and you’ll get a “harrumph” from the House of Representatives. They knew this when they passed it, and they knew it even better as each of the Presidents (yes, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush uno, Clinton, Bush dos, Obama, Trump, and even Biden) did what they wanted and “interpreted” it as compliant with the WPA. The only mechanisms for compliance are impeachment or cutting off funding for the military. Why doesn’t Congress do the latter if they feel so strongly about it? Because they fear some military unit somewhere will get attacked and be unable to defend itself because Congress cut off funds. So they “piddle, twiddle, and resolve.” Don’t be like Congress (which is a great life rule, really).

“The US engaged in bad faith negotiations” or “launched a surprise attack.”

This criticism often compares the US attack on Iran with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (no, really). Japan never gave the US an ultimatum, even their last communication (which was delivered late) was an ambiguous observation about ending negotiations, not war. Meanwhile, the US made clear that Iran had to renounce its nuclear ambitions. I understand they were confused when we attacked, as we had allowed them to obfuscate for literal decades, but that’s on them, not the US.

But the larger, even gaping hole in this criticism is this: Iran has been at war with the US for forty-seven years, since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary forces chased the Shah of Iran from power. His regime instituted barbaric penalties against women and minorities, sought ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, sponsored or protected numerous bloody terrorist movements, threatened to exterminate the Jewish people, attacked its neighbors, and acted in constant opposition to American interests. What country (excluding insurgent movements) is responsible for more American deaths over that period? Iran. They literally chanted “Death to America” every morning. I know one man who tied himself into knots claiming such chants were just words, and “never hurt anybody.” Okay. They also took hostages, blew up diplomatic buildings, tried to assassinate US officials, attacked warships, and lobbed missiles indiscriminantly. Their main protection was a sense that any attempt to reduce their capabilities or change the regime would be costly and difficult. That deterrence worked, until a few days ago.

So we indeed surprised them when we started fighting back, not when we started a war.

“This could go very wrong.”

Yes, indeed, this opertion could still “go south” as we used to say in the business, and may do so. But to ignore the fact it hasn’t yet? That’s just willful disregard for reality. The great Prussian strategist Carl von Clasewitz often gets cited for his maxims about the fog and friction of war (come to think of it, I did so earlier). If uncertainty is all one takes from Clausewitz, it is a thin strategic gruel. Uncertainty resides in all life’s actions: your next parent-teacher conference, your next plane trip, your next skin cancer screening. While war has its own risks, it never is certain. To whit:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

— Text prepared by General Eisenhower in case the D-Day landings failed

We all know how D-Day came out. If it had failed, the Iron Curtain would have descended on the Rhine, or the English Channel, instead of central Germany. But Ike didn’t know for sure, and had to prepare that note. If today’s media had covered Normandy, the slaughter at Omaha Beach might have convinced the American public it wasn’t worth it. Missed assault landing zones, paratroopers drowned in marshes, guns without ammo, you name it, it happened. But this was an amazing success story, not a failure. The most complicated over-the-beach invasion in military history put ashore a fighting army in days, all the trauma aside.

Set down your dog-eared (hopefully) edition of “On War” and watch, not pontificate.

“There is no plan.”

This is one I can definitively refute. From all the way back to the creation of US Central Command, they have had a OPLAN (Operational Plan) for war with Iran. It once was OPLAN 1001, and later 1025. There are also various CONPLANs (Contingency Plans) for specific scenarios of hostilities. These are the ones each President has to approve, and there are extensive war-games, reviews, and constant updates. Trump doesn’t show up at “the tank” (the Joint Chiefs of Staff conference room) and say, “go kill the ba@st@rds!” Well, maybe Hegseth did. But what the War Department does is execute a plan. Because there is one.

Related to this is the claim the administration “was surprised” by something the Iranians did. Again, I can confirm that nothing the Iranians have done so far was not already in the planning documents. When commanders or civilian officials say they “didn’t anticipate Iran closing the strait of Hormuz” they are saying they knew it was possible, but considered unlikely because it’s a losing proposition. Closing the strait means nobody’s oil gets out, not just the Arab states. That ticks off countries who might otherwise look favorably on Iran, like China. And Iran can’t make the closure permanent: they only have so many mines, so many boats, so many anti-ship missiles. And each time they come out, they’re vulnerable to US air power. They can wreak havoc for sure, for a time. But if they do, the US still retains the option to destroy (or better yet) occupy Kharg island, the main point of loading for Iranian oil. No oil, no money for the IRGC or the mullahs. This is why the closure of the strait was seen as an option for Iran, but a bad one: we can escalate to cause more pain for them then they can cause for us.

“This war is a disaster.”

This is especially offensive. Couching the war as “leading to a disaster” is at least a hedge. But look at the results thus far. Iran’s blue water navy is unintentionally sub-marine. Their air force is a series of chalk outlines on the tarmac. Missile launches are down 90%, as are drone attacks. Perhaps they are holding back, but that leads one to ask: for what? The US and Israel are flying over Iran unopposed and blowing up targets at a record clip. That does not equal victory, but it can’t be characterized by a rational mind as a disaster (I’m talking to you, Senator Murphy).

As positive as the US results have been, Iran’s responses have been pathetic. While they have had some limited success against military radars, for the most part they have lobbed missiles and drones at hotels, refineries, our embassy in Baghdad, and anywhere in Israel, resulting in limited damage. Military planners considered this too as an option for Iran, and again, decided it was a bad one. Yes, they can cause some damage. No, they don’t have the targeting or missiles/drones to make an operational difference. The only effective measure by the Iranian regime thus far is the threat by the Basij militia to shoot any protestors in the head. Tough guys.

If this were a prize fight, the ref would have stopped it. But it’s not a prize fight; it’s a war. Meaning round one is just that, and no one knows how it will turn out yet. But if you think the US is behind on points in the early rounds, you might have been a Soviet Olympic judge.

“No one has explained why this war, why now.”

I’m a little sympathetic with those who are exasperated by the ever-changing comments by Trump about the goals, activities, and length of this war. But only a little. After ten years of Trump, who says whatever is on his mind without any filter, why does anybody still parse his words and complain about their unreality, their mutual incoherence, or their flat-out distortion? Why? If you look to what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says, or the CENTCOM Commander, or even Secretary Rubio, you’ll find the clarity you crave. Note I didn’t include War Secretary Hegseth, who seems to act more and more like a Marvel comics character every day. Trump and Hegseth have all the message discipline of two adolescents babbling-while-high on their sugary Halloween take.

But the American people deserve a better explanation. The funny thing is, they have had it for forty-seven years. All those Presidents have held that Iran could not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons, had to stop killing or taking Americans hostage, had to stop fomenting terrorism. At times, some Presidents acted on those demands; other times, they negotiated, while realizing that the Iranian regime has a perfect record of not complying with any of their negotiated limitations. Sadly, the Trump administration is unwilling to make the case that this attack is a response completely in accord with decades of US policy. But it is.

Whatever you feel about it, the US is at war with Iran. If you want to make a case against the war, do so, but remember to address the problem, not the President. How does your criticism or policy alternative eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, or terrorist proxies? That’s the problem. This war may not solve it either, but you don’t have to be a Clausewitz scholar to understand how it might.

Would I like to see the Islamic Republic flushed down the toilet bowl of history? Yes, yes I would. Would I settle for them being neutered back into the Stone Age they seem to revere? Probably. Strategy in war is all about adjusting your means to accomplish your ends. I’m reminded of another statement by Lincoln:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

An Iran whose missiles no longer threaten the entire Middle East, who no longer threatens to choke off the Strait of Hormuz, who no longer funds terrorism or seeks nuclear weapons, is a goal worth fighting for, whether the President can string the subjects and verbs together or not. Finally, as we are at war, never fail to realize all our efforts must be toward victory. If you–even for a moment–think a negative result on the battlefield serves some partisan political purposes, shame on you. Few regimes have been as unceasingly evil as the one in Tehran. That doesn’t justify anything or everything the US does (just war and justice in war, as they say), but we should all be clear what we’re fighting against. And it’s not each other.