Retired Generals Opining (Irresponsibly) on Politics and Grand Strategy

The phenomenon is as old as war and politics. The American Civil War was famous for it; Lincoln (rightly) sacked generals over it. Once they're retired and have the mike however, there's not much that can be done in a free society except to fisk their arguments.

Thus it's merely disappointing, not surprising, that General John Abizaid, "recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East" made public statements Monday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (a generally conservative think tank) that were filled with naive analogies, false assumptions and principles so vague that even a career State Department bureaucrat would likely be confused.

Abizaid said:

"Iran is not a suicide nation... I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon... I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear... There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran... Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well... War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it - in my mind - to every extent that we can... On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests... I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran - that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power... We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it."

There's more in the AP article that fills in the gaps, but this is enough and I'd rather critique Abizaid himself than the AP which we already know to be biased.

What are Abizaid's errors?

1) He assumes that Iran is not a "suicide nation". It may not be (but would we want to risk going against what seems plain from its statements?). Its people certainly aren't. (I spent the weekend running all over the state of New Hampshire with a wonderful Iranian ex-pat friend; my college roommate was Iranian). Yet it's leaders have given every indication that they are--and that they will happily take millions down with them on the theory of the return of the 12th Imam and the fulfillment of Islamic jihad, they actually have a duty to do so.

2) He makes a specious comparison to Cold War politics. The motivations of the Russians and Chinese were not religiously prophetic in anywhere near the same sense (or intensity) that Iran sees the divine necessity of the destruction of Israel and the West.

3) He is vague in talking about how we could "live with" a nuclear Iran because, if he were clear about it, he would be shot down immediately. The way to "live with" a nuclear Iran is to cede Israel--to effectively cut off our alliance with them. This is one place where 'paleo' and 'neo' conservatives disagree. Sacrificing a peace-seeking, stable, prosperous, long-time, democratic ally that shares our Judeo-Christian world view and values is not only morally sickening but ultimately short-sighted in the sense that Dietrich Bonhoffer meant it in his famous treatise on the Nazis coming first for one group, then the next and the next and the next.

4) He falsely assumes that it is Iran's desire to "compete" with us and that we should feel secure because we're much bigger and stronger. They don't want to compete with us. They want to erode our influence in their region, increase their influence in Europe, and pursue jihad. Theirs is a millennial (and frankly brilliant) ultra-long-term, darkly messianic strategy. Abizaid assumes, in the a Roman sense, that what is strong now must always be that way because it is. That's bad history.

5) He references "pressing" the international community as if we had not already done so--hard--over many many years. And gotten... squat. Diplomacy is essential. Diplomacy with nothing credible to back it up is worse than useless. It is enabling.

6) He draws lines in the sand that blow away in the wind. "We can't allow the Iranians to continue to push... [against] our vital interests", means absolutely nothing. Vague boundaries are the font of half the wars in history (including, arguably, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I, if not II, not to mention many in which the U.S. was not involved). The Iranians have demonstrated that they will push and push and push and break every rule in the book and every talky-talk 'agreement' with the spineless likes of UN lackeys until they are stopped by force. They started this kind of behavior in 1979; nothing gives credence to the thought that they are likely to change.

7) He speaks, as many liberals do, about war with Iran as a future possibility rather than a current reality. When one is already at war and the other guy started it, the conversation is entirely different than when one is safely at peace and considering pre-emption.

Abizaid is right on one thing however: war is hell. Taking the initiative, for once, in the continuing war with Iran will be messy. Lots of people will die. It will be bad for the economy. The long-term repercussions cannot be accurately predicted. I occasionally have apocalyptic thoughts about it, as do others. Yet it will do at least one thing: stop Iran from making the nuclear strike on Israel it has sought for decades. Preventing that inevitability is worth much.