The only reason why we needed to fight terrible proxy wars during the Cold War was that the threat of global armageddon was hanging over us. do we really want to consider Iran as "untouchable" as the USSR during the Cold War? What benefit do we get from allowing such a safe haven and supply lines for insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention its dark hand in Lebanon and Gaza?
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Do not put words in my mouth. If you look at my original post, I'm saying that we shouldn't be surprised that others would learn some techniques from the Cold War. Nowhere do I say that Iran is "untouchable." I'd suggest toning down on the rhetoric and looking at what's actually being said.
The Cold War (ideology and other matters aside) provided many second-tier powers with a good look at ways to wage conflict against a major power. They had ample opportunity to see what worked, and what didn't. That these powers (state and otherwise) had so much time to study these methods unhindered makes our task much more difficult.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Not trying to put words in your mouth -- just trying to question the metaphor of our situation with Iran with our situation with USSR
It's not a metaphor. It's an observation that many other countries and non-state actors could and obviously did learn some techniques from the Cold War and its associated proxy wars.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Iran May Know of Weapons for Taliban, Gates Contends
14 June NY Times - Iran May Know of Weapons for Taliban, Gates Contends by Thom Shanker.
The flow of illicit weapons from Iran to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan has reached such large quantities that it suggests that the shipments are taking place with the knowledge of the government in Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday.
Mr. Gates said he had seen new intelligence analysis over the past couple of weeks “that makes it pretty clear there’s a fairly substantial flow of weapons” from Iran across its border to assist insurgents in Afghanistan.
Commenting on potential Iranian government involvement in the arms flow, Mr. Gates said, “I haven’t seen any intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say, given the quantities that we’re seeing, it is difficult to believe that it’s associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it’s taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.”...
A well-known Cold War episode that directly involved Iran is something that I'm sure still has some influence.
I'm speaking of the 70's, when the Agency funneled millions of dollars of weapons and other supplies through Iran to support a Kurdish uprising against Saddam. The intent was never to enable the Kurds to win, but simply to put enough pressure on the Iraqi regime to force them to make territorial concessions regarding the Shatt al-Arab. Once Iraq and Iran signed, then ratified, the Algiers accord delineating the border in Iran's favor, the Kurds were completely cut-off by the US and Iran.
It was in response to criticism of first encouraging to revolt, then abandoning the Iraqi Kurds to slaughter that created tens of thousands of refugees, that Kissinger made the famous statement, "covert action should not be confused with missionary work".
In many ways, this episode is a close analogy to today. The Iranians find the situation upon their borders threatening, but they are not capable of directly intervening to restructure the situation to their liking. However, in their use of proxies, they do not care about the true success or failure of the groups they are supporting: the intent is to mold the political situations in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can be exploited to their benefit.
To effectively counter this, we need to clearly understand their both their perception of the threat they face and what is their desired end state (to be accomplished through their covert activities). Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that we cater to their perceptions or desires - they are bad guys, after all. But to efficiently mitigate this threat we need to leverage it from their side - not our image of what's going on.
Last edited by Jedburgh; 06-14-2007 at 03:50 PM.
Iran's war against the US
Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Her proxies have caused the death of more Americans than anyone besides al Qaeda, since that time. It is something the regimes admits in private and occasionally in public. While it has been clandestine, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons could make that war even more deadly.
Iran's current activity appears to be that of helping our enemies with logistical support. Attacking that logistical support has resulted in the capture of some Iranians in Iraq and may do so in Afghanistan. Iran has responded to that capture with a bogus hostage try against the Brits and the current arrest of Americans visiting Iran.
The only reason Iran has not used more effective means in its war with the US is it fears a US response. I'm not sure why they fear such a response since we seem to be going out of our way to even acknowledge Iranian responsibility for the logistical assistance to our enemies. I guess both sides fear the consequences that might flow from that acknowledgment. We have come along way from the original announcement of the Bush doctrine on states that support terrorism.
Up The Ante
Iran's nervousness can only increase as they strive to obtain nuclear weapons, because if upon obtaining that capability they are ever militarily punished for their proxy actions, they run a risk of total obliteration should they use a nuke(s) in retaliation. Should they ever respond in a non-nuke way to any punitive attacks for their proxy actions, they know they will lose their nuke facilities as a precautionary measure in the second round of retaliation. The only logical thing to do is slip a few billion under the table to Israel and have them take out Iran's nuclear capability now. After all, Israel is already the villain over there and that is exactly what villains do.
I'm with Steve Blair on this. The United States has a tendency to assume that when we arm insurgents and build nuclear weapons it's legitimate, but it's not when other nations do it. After all, we have a stated policy of supporting groups which want to overthrow the Iranian regime. I'm not opposing this policy--that regime is evil and dangerous. But we need to stop whining when Tehran arms our enemies and just get down to making them pay a strategic price for it.
Agreed. I would also say that the use of proxies in warfare is not limited to the Cold War. We--the US--were French proxies when it was convenient for France and so it has gone throughout history. Proxy war is really an off shoot or 1st cousin of coalition warfare in that you are fighting together, you are letting someone else take on your enemies.
Best
Tom
Agreed, Tom. Proxy warfare has been with us for centuries, and will continue to wait in the wings. I used the Cold War as an example because of both its length and the fact that it's a very recent example. It provides a really good look at a prolonged proxy war where the two powers never really "met on the battlefield" but waged a determined war just the same. It also played out during a time of increasing media coverage and wide dissemination of techniques and tactics, making its lessons more accessible and possibly appearing more relevant than some older examples.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
We conduct our own "dirty little wars" throughout the globe. We arm rebel groups, we finance media outlets that will broadcast anti-government sentiment, and we payroll politicians in opposing parties that would be "pro-US", and when we get caught doing it we wrap it around the flag and market it as a "pro-democracy" necessity to help those oppressed. However, when someone like Iran does the same thing to us in Afghanistan and Iraq we call it "interfering" and "acts of terrorism", when the reality is we can't have it both ways. We can't do it and then tell others it is wrong...that is absolutely poor leadership. No military leader will tell his troops not to drink and drive on a Saturday night, yet turn around and do it himself and then use his rank and authority to bypass any punishment or at least not do it and expect those he would wish to lead will believe he has any legitimacy. I would like to see Secretary Gates do more than drop in on Afghanistan with his pre-drafted agendas to spread the anti-Iran message and do the usual ass grab with Musharraf and gang in regards to the FATA and the Taliban sanctuaries provided by both. I am sure he was bedazzled by lots of PowerPoint and staff briefs that show how our men and women are taking it to the Taliban and that Pakistan's recent (yet another) attempt to offensively "clean out" the border regions will lead to more "success" and will give the Karazai government more time and room to grow.
I just returned from a trip to that part of the world, and my bottom line assessment is that the Taliban are fully in engaged Phase II (possibly moving into Phase III) of their insurgency against what I will comically call the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They have shadow governments throughout Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimruz Provinces. They are conducting offensive operations against military bases with the near term goal of over-running one in an effort to embarrass us and our Afghan counterparts (possibly the tipping point into Phase III), however some will argue Phase III is already here but not in a conventional sense we as westerners are used to...a discussion for a different thread. Anyway, the Taliban are successfully conducting thier insurgency for a few reasons, 1) they don't mass their forces inside well fortified base camps which are IMHO are greater source of revenue for the military industrial complex rather than a military necessity which runs counter-productive to a successful counter-insurgency strategy; 2) the Taliban don't have 10-15 staff officers for everyone "trigger puller" living in these same base camps demanding they attend no less than two VTCs daily, nor give them requirement to get their PowerPoint CONOP slides approved from half-way across the country before they push a 20 man element out to do some killing I mean "shaping operations"; 3) their logistics train isn't tied to a third country who continually provides sanctuary to their enemy; and 4) they're not afraid to use the media to "sell" their war to their Arab benefactors and other potential Muslim sympathizers while they paint the US and its Afghan puppets as "evil" and "anti-Muslim"...I could go on and on, but won't...
Bottom line, the Iranians bringing arms into Afghanistan and providing them to the Taliban should be the least of the Secretary of Defense's worries in regards to the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. Instead of the usual "ass and cake party" as my Australian friends so elloquently describe these VIP visits, I would much rather see Secretary Gates take some of those geniuses in his staff and put them to work on developing a military strategy that will ensure we win this counter-insurgency fight against the Taliban. The single point of failure in winning or losing won't be where the Taliban get their weapons from but whether they (Taliban) retain legitimacy among the population of Afghanistan, and on the flip side of that de-legitimize our efforts and those of our "puppet" Karazai government and military. We will continue to lose the IO and physical fight in Afghanistan because our culture does not recognize the roots of any problem. We simply attack the limbs and the leaves, and in the end the tap root remains protected in the soil only to grow again. Blaming Iran isn't going to win the fights in Iraq and Aghanistan, but rather success will come from within if we develop strategies that legitimize the existing governments in place. Those who would advocate "limited" attacks against Iran as a form of punishment are correctly assuming that "spanking" them is going to change their behavior. It will only inflame the already rampant anti-US sentiment in the Middle East and reinforce our enemy's IO message that we hate Islam and want to rule the world.
Why are people surprised that Iran is acting against U.S. interests?
In 1953, U.S. action installed an anti-Communist dictator (anti-Communist is not the same as pro-democracy). The Iranian popular understanding (right or wrong) was that the U.S. installed a puppet dictator. In 1978, the religious party in Iran staged a revolution, and deposed the Shah, and for the past 30+ years, their war cry has been "Death to U.S. and its Allies!" Anyone who did well under the Shah or thought well of the U.S. has either left, been killed, or has spent 30 years keeping thier opinions out of the public light. Oh yeah, the U.S. threw resources at the Iraqis for a decade of Iraqi war on Iran. (Yes, this is the simplified version, I've left out the British and Russian part of the story but we're discussing popular thought not rational thought.)
To them, the U.S. is the country that installs tyrants, supports Iran's enemies, and now has them surrounded (roughly two thirds of Iran's land borders currently have U.S. soldiers on the far side, and from two directions). If, in 1980, the Soviet Union had the presense in Canada and Mexico that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have done a lot more than just ship arms across borders.
Don't get me wrong, Ahm-a-nut-job and the rest of the current Iranian regime are a repressive, religious oligarchy that desparately need to be replaced. But, given their perceptions of the situation, their actions are understandable. Ahmadinejad and many others in Iran have a vision of Greater Iran based on Persia's political and cultural heritage, encompassing what Persia held at the height of its power, much like Milosevic's vision of a Greater Serbia. The problem with this vision is that folks in Greece, Turkey, and many other places will take exception, and although at its peak, Persia was remarkably sophisticated and advanced for its time, it was still a tyranny and it was over two thousand years ago.
Strategically, Iran is providing sanctuary to anyone in the region that they see opposing U.S. interests. Regarding the Taliban, the way to beat insurgents always starts by denying them sanctuary. An obvious countermeasure is to return the favor and provide sanctuary for any insurgents in Iran...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks