Iraq/Iran Wars: Escalation

US expected to boost troop levels in Iraq by Ann Scott Tyson Christian Science Monitor 11/18/04.

The US is likely to expand the force by thousands of GIs in coming weeks by delaying the departure of more experienced units from Iraq as fresh troops rotate in, military officials say.

The overlap would create a temporary surge in American forces - which now number 141,000 in Iraq - to cope with an expected wave of insurgent attacks aimed at disrupting the polling. More US troops are required as Iraqi security forces remain highly vulnerable to attacks and intimidation. This was underscored by a rash of insurgent strikes on police stations in Mosul, Baqubah, and other cities in the past week, when attacks nationwide rose to 50 percent higher than the average in recent months.

This is what is meant by a backdoor draft.  Expanding the forces in the field like this by extending tours of duty has a number of effects.  Not least among them is that it threatens the re-enlistment rates of volunteer soldiers, which is already putting even more pressure on Army personnel resources.  It also means that troops in the field for extended tours are more likely to become bitter, punchy and trigger-happy.  Not something you want to have happen in any war, but especially risky in a counterinsurgency war like this one.

In reality, the US cannot substantially increase ground forces in Iraq for the long term without accepting risk in other parts of the world or making Iraq tours longer or closer together - a step sure to lower morale. "I'm committed to providing the troops that are requested, but I can't promise more than I've got," the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told a Congressional hearing Wednesday in which military service chiefs detailed soaring demands on manpower and equipment.

"The demand on the force has increased exponentially," the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Michael Hagee, told the House Armed Services Committee, saying Marines now spend about twice as much time deployed as two years ago. ...

"There is ample opportunity" to increase troop levels by overlapping new arrivals with others whose tours would be extended as large units of 20,000 to 30,000 troops rotate, says a senior US military official in Baghdad. But a larger increase could run into constraints - the current limits of basing and support services.

I'm expecting the Bush administration to announce soon that the draft needs to be reinstated, using the suddenly-urgent threat of Iran as an excuse:  Government looking at military draft lists by Alma Walzer Brownsville (TX) Herald 11/15/04. (Also available at CommonDreams.org.)

Just to be clear, I don't mention this as a long-shot criticism of the Bush administration, though I am opposed to having a draft at this time.  It's just that, given the policy of escalation in Iraq and now the clear beginnings of a propaganda campaign for military confrontation with Iran, I just don't see how the administration can avoid having a draft.  Even maintaining the current levels of troop commitment in Iraq will require a draft, because of the way they're burning out the volunteers and even the reserves.  The United States cannot run its foreign policy on the Bush Doctrine of preventive wars of liberation without a much larger army.

And the only way to get it quickly - now maybe the only way to get it at all - is through conscription.  I really don't see how they can avoid it, without giving up the doctrine of preventive war.  And since preventive war is not only bad policy but criminal policy under the laws of the United States and international law, that is the main reason I'm opposed to a draft.  If this administration has the authority to expand the military through a draft, its foreign policy is sure to become far more reckless and destructive.

As a background to the buildup to war with Iran, it's worth remembering that Iran has had a program to develop nuclear weapons, that they have been the chief "state sponsor" of international terrorism specifically directed against the United States and that they have given assistance to Al Qaeda.  It's at least as important to remember that all this was known in 2002-3 as the buildup to the Iraq War took place.  The Bush administration made it a priority to go to war with Iraq, which had no nuclear program and no WMDs, was not sponsoring anti-American terrorism and did not have operational connections with Al Qaeda.

So when the Republican Values war fans start accusing those of us who oppose preventive war with Iran of ignoring the threat and of supporting the Iranian regime by opposing a new unilateral war of liberation, its worth remembering that up until now, the Republican war fans have favored ignoring the threat of Iran and opposing war to overthrow its government.  They were more concerned with cheering Bush's War against Iraq, which (not to be repetitive) had no nuclear program and no WMDs, was not sponsoring anti-American terrorism and did not have operational connections with Al Qaeda.  Duncan Black/Atrios makes a similiar point.

We've been here before, in the buildup to the Iraq War:

Iran suspected of modifying missiles to carry warheads, Powell says by Warren Stroebel, Knight-Ridder Newspapers 11/17/04.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday that U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran is working on ways to modify missiles to carry nuclear warheads.

Powell spoke as an Iranian exile group made dramatic new claims about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, including ongoing covert enrichment of uranium, which the secretary of state said he couldn't confirm.

The claims by the National Council of Resistance in Iran came just days after Iran and three European nations reached an agreement under which Tehran is supposed to suspend its enrichment of uranium, a key ingredient in an atomic bomb.

The group and its military arm, the Mujahedeen Khalq, are on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. But their past revelations about Iran's nuclear weapons work have sometimes proved to be accurate. [my emphasis]

(Powell was making his claim supposedly based on an independent source, one of somewhat less than stellar credibility, apparently:  Nuclear Disclosures on Iran Unverified by Dafna Linzer Washington Post 11/19/04.)

The mainstream media script on Powell is that he's a respectable moderate.  But that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't remember Powell's real level of credibility on matters of war and peace.  Which he showed in his presentation to the UN Security Council on Iraq's WMDs.  (See the excellent retrospective by the AP Chalres Hanley which I discussed in an earlier post.)  Or when he actually used the word "swimmingly" to describe how wonderfully things were going in the Iraq War.

Noting how, shall we say, thinly-sourced Powell's latest claim is, Steve Soto asks ("Shades of Chalabi - Powell Uses Intelligence From Walk-In Source On Iran", The Left Coaster blog 11/19/04), "What is this, drive-by intelligence? Did he deliver a pizza with that intelligence?"  I think Soto has come up with a real keeper of an image here: intelligence revelations from "the pizza delivery guy."

Bush Confronts New Challenge on Issue of Iran by Steven Weisman New York Times 11/18/04.

In an eerie repetition of the prelude to the Iraq war, hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about Iran's nuclear capacities to make the case that Iran is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or "regime change."

But Britain, France and Germany are urging diplomacy, placing their hopes in a deal they brokered last week in which Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program in return for discussions about future economic benefits. ...

A European diplomat familiar with the British-French-German initiative said they were also pessimistic that Iran would back off its nuclear ambitions, but that they had no choice but to engage Iran because military options were distasteful or impractical after the troubled invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"America clearly understands that Iran will be one of its greatest threats in the second administration," this diplomat said. "But the Europeans understand that even the greatest threats also present a great opportunity to resolve problems." ...

But an administration official said that a military strike or sabotage was not out of the question - "you never take the military option off the table," he said - and that in any case it was "money in the bank"for Iran to be concerned about such an option, because it might be goaded into a more conciliatory approach to the United States.

On the other hand, many in the administration say that Iran is not likely to enter into talks with the United States, as the Europeans want, because therevolutionary clerics who control the government are unalterably opposed to engaging with a country it considers the enemy.

"You can't call yourself a revolutionary regime and also negotiate with the Great Satan," said an administration official.

Oh, yes, how can we possibly negotiate with a regime that calls us bad names?  So much better to just invade them and fight another losing counterinsurgency war for the next four years.

And it's still less than three weeks after the election.  Bush is still a good two months away from being sworn in to his first term as elected president.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been following the Iranian nuclear issue for a while.  These articles (currentlyfeatured on the Web site's home page) provide some point of reference not immediately confronting massive propaganda for war with Iran.

Iran: Furor over fuel by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein May/June 2003
Iran, player or rogue? by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein Sept/Oct 2003
The centrifuge connection by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein Mar/Apr 2004
Schooling Iran's atom squad by Jack Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson May/June 2004.
Iran: Countdown to showdown by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein Nov/Dec 2004

The Nov/Dec article provides some good general themes that at least those of us in the "reality-based community" can use to try to keep some perspective as the war drums get louder.  The bottom line for Albright and Hinderstein:

Iran does not appear tohave nuclear weapons and seems unlikely to be able to make them for at least several years. Nonetheless, the IAEA board ofgovernors is correct to view the Iranian situation as urgent and to issue a firm demand that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs.

However, as they also note, without a genuinely unified approach between the US and the EU, which currently we do not have, it will be almost impossible to come up with a deal that is acceptable to all parties and enforceable by other means than unilateral military threats from the US.

How much cooperation is the Bush administration providing to the EU or to theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in trying to negotiate a peaceful end to the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program? 

Questions remain about whether Iran has conducted activities to research, test, and produce a nuclear weapon itself, a process called nuclear weaponization. Although the U.S. government and Israel have stated for years that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, they [the Bush and Sharon governments] have not provided the IAEA or the public with the location of any nuclear weaponization sites or any direct evidence of such activities. They have largely arrived at their conclusion that Iran has a nuclear weapons program through indirect assessments. [my emphasis]

Key elements to watch in the Iranian nuclear situation:

* Uranium enrichment and plutonium repocessing activities.  The suspension of these programs "lies at the heart of any potential solution to the conflict with Iran."

* Cooperation with IAEA inspections.

* The decision to construct a heavy-water research reactor.

* Centrifuge operations and related activities, including manufacturing components and assembling and testing centrifuges.  Their P2 gas centrifuges are a particular focus of concern.

* The origin of uranium contamination at several locations detected by the IAEA

* The Laviza-Shian site.

* The Parchin complex.

Unfortunately, we may soon hear Rush Limbaugh blaring Oxycontin spleen about plutonium enrichment and P2 gas centrifuges and see Secretary of State "Condi, Condi" presenting blurry photos at the UN Security Council on the Parchin and Laviza Shian sites with dark questions about mysterious trucks parked nearby.

Albright and Hinderstein estimate that the very earliest Iran could develop usable nuclear weapons based on what is publicly known at this point is 2007.  And they stress that early 2007 is a worst case scenario, or from the standpoint of Iranian nuclear advocates, a best case:

However, this scenario must be viewed as Iran's best case under prevailing conditions. Iran might not be able to meet such a schedule for bringing a centrifuge plant into operation. The suspension of manufacturing and operating centrifuges could be reestablished, or Iran might have trouble making so many centrifuges. In addition, Iran does not appear to have accumulated enough experience to operate a cascade of centrifuges reliably. Iran had assembled 164 centrifuges into a cascade just before the suspension, but it did not acquire sufficient experience in operating the cascade to be certain it would perform adequately. Centrifuges can crash during operation, causing other centrifuges in the cascade to fail--in essence, destroying the entire cascade. Thus,Iran might need a year or more of additional experience in operating test cascades before building and operating a plant able to make HEU for nuclear weapons.

After what we saw with the Iraq War, though, no one should be reassured that this consideration will slow a rush to war if the Bush administration has decided on that course.  With Porter Goss' newly-purged CIA cranking out terrifying intelligence reports based on exile politicians' claims and Dark Lord Dick Cheney warning darkly about Iran being on the verge of nuclear weapons, throw in accusations of Iran assisting the insurgents in Iraq, sponsoring terrorism and Al Qaeda and generally being bad, wicked and Muslim, and sober assessments can easily be ignored as a pliant Congress votes for a draft and gives the president another war resolution that they won't even bother to enforce when he violates it.

Plus, when they come up with hot new documents from the pizza delivery service, it will be hard for skeptics to get attention in the mainstream media.  Especially when Judith Miller "confirms" the pizza intelligence with her sources at the Pentagon and the New York Times runs hair-raising front-page stories on it all.

And what do we know?  Lincoln's caution on unchecked presidential warmaking power in 1848 apply to the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, as well:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.  Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose.  If to-day, he should choose to say he think it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him?  You may say to him, "I see not probability of theBritish invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

Apparently, Business Week's  Stan Crock has also been talking to the pizza guy: Iran's Nukes: The Crisis Is Far from Over by Stan Crock (with Babak Prirouz and Neal Sandler) Business Week 11/29/04 issue.

Iran maintains it is pursuing nuclear technology only for energy purposes.  But some experts believe that as early as next year, Iran will have acquired enough knowhow to make weapons.

Foxism comes to Business Week: "some people say," the Fox talking heads intone to introduce a Republican Party talking point of the day; "some experts say," declares Stan Crock, reporting the latest from the pizza guy.  Maybe he's not quite ready to go totally Fox on us, though.  If you comma-dance on the sentence the way conservatives love to, it says only that Iran will have "enough knowhow," whatever that means, by 2005.

I realize that actually thinking about this stuff doesn't have quite the satisfying, atavistic rush of just cheering for war and killing and wiping out the Evil Ones.  But I'm guessing that Iran already has "enough knowhow" to produce nuclear weapons.  Pretty much anyone who can navigate the Dewey decimal system and operate a dialup ISP connection can collect the basic of making a nuclear weapon - or at lest a hefty atomic bomb - on the Internet and the public library of any sizable American city.

But there's two catches.  One is that you can know 99.5% of how to make a nuclear device, but it's the other 0.5%, with the minute details of exact amounts of materials and extremely precise instructions on processing materials and so forth, that are still required to actually buildone of the things.

The other catch is that you actually have to have the stuff - the centrifuges, the processed uranium or plutonium - and you have to be able to test the things.  We can speculate about a distant future where all that kind of things will be concealable from satellites and other detection methods now used.  But it's not at all like chemical and biological weapons, where rudimentary forms of them can be made by anyone with a basic laboratory, some qualified technicians and a lot of ill will.

Yet there it is, plopped out there for Business Week's readers: gasp, choke, Iran may have the "knowhow" in a couple of months!  We've got toinvade now!  Well, it's not quite to that stage yet.  But as the administration hypes the Iranian nuclear threat enough to get people talking about it over Thanksgiving holidays - war talk looks to be a permanent feature of family holiday occasions as long as the Bush dynasty remains in power - we're seeing the same irresponsible behavior from some journalists already that smoothed the way for the war to get Iraq's non-existent WMDs.

"Chalabi Pizza Service.  Here's your large pepperoni with mushrooms. And a packet of top-secret documents on the P2 gas centrifuges at Laviza-Shian."

Did I mention that in 2003, the Bush administration insisted on giving priority over Iran to an invasion of Iraq, which had no nuclear program and no WMDs, was not sponsoring anti-American terrorism and did not have operational connections with Al Qaeda?