Normal professionals before they do anything, they calculate their resources and try to formulate parameters of a desirable outcome. But this is not how US foreign policy operates for a number of reasons, one of the major of which is that the United States doesn't really know how to fight wars and achieve its main political objectives. Refer yourself to Patrick Armstrong's article I wrote about yesterday. Now Daniel Davis throws in some really bitter pill to swallow for America's exceptionalists, many of who are really exceptionally ignorant and unprofessional.
Yes, we know that and the reason is simple--even if the United States would have these resources it still wouldn't be able to conduct a land invasion into Iran without sustaining massive casualties--a proposition which doesn't sit well with most American politicians, bar some lunatics from neocon segment of American power.
"Maximum pressure," as currently practiced by the United States against Iran, is a self-defeating mentality that has decisively proven to be an abject failure. Its architects claimed it would bring Tehran to heel, that the pressure would force the ruling mullahs into permanently giving up their nuclear program, and that Washington would end up with a better agreement than the Iran deal that the U.S. pulled out of two years ago. The reality has been almost the polar opposite.
I have news for Davis, "Maximum Pressure" is an obverse side of risk and casualties aversion characteristic of the "American way of war". Recall Armstrong's crucial sentence from yesterday, I reiterate.
The American way of warfare assumes unchallenged air superiority and reliable communications. What would happen if the complacent US forces meet serious integrated air defence and genuine electronic warfare capabilities? The little they have seen of Russian EW capabilities in Syria and Ukraine has made their “eyes water“; some foresee a “Waterloo” in the South China Sea. Countries on Washington’s target list know its dependence.
Simple as that. No one wants war and the United States certainly can bomb and launch missiles at target such as Iran, the main issue is--and what is after that? As Davis notes:
The reality is that none of the American combat troops on the ground in those three countries helps bolster American security. Yet their proximity to Iran (and other nefarious state and nonstate actors in the region) places them in nonstop danger of being attacked. In retaliation to the death of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani last January, Iran launched a barrage of missiles at a base in Iraq where American troops were stationed. Miraculously, no Americans were killed in the strike. Other U.S. troops, however, in all three locations continue to die, owing to hostile action. It is time to get our service members out and end the daily risk to their lives.
In case of real war with Iran the number of casualties will grow exponentially. Some readers of my blog, sadly, still do not understand a significance and a shock value of Iranian strike at US bases. Even without killing (hundreds sustained concussions), Iran demonstrated for the whole world to see that in case of real war it is not going to be a repetition of Desert Storm, whose self-aggrandizing and totally false militarily narrative was fed to the unsuspecting and militarily illiterate American public. As Davis concludes:
Continuing to employ maximum pressure is a losing proposition for the United States. It exerts pointless pressure on the Iranian regime, alienates our closest allies, and keeps our combat troops in perpetual danger. Risking another endless war is not in our interests.
One is forced to ask a question: but what are America's interests? Who can realistically formulate those? What passes for the America's interests today is nothing more than primitive mantra of America's "greatness" which looks more and more dubious with each passing day and, sadly, observing current American elites there is no hope of anyone emerging with a clear vision for America's future. Slogans are not substitution for actions especially against the real enemy of the United States: we have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us. (c)