Mullen It Over

Is he playing "good cop" or doing a bit of pushback against the administration? It's hard to tell. But Adm. Mike Mullen's comments yesterday on the potential impact of an Israeli airstrike on Iran were interesting, not so much in view of saber-rattling by Israel, which is about as newsworthy as "dog bites man", but in view of saber-rattling by virtually all of the high-ranking civilian members of the Bush administration, who are, after all, his superiors in the hallowed military-civilian pecking order. It seems that high-ranking officers have become less and less willing to simply parrot the administration's line on policies that impact the military. As I've said before, the military's job is to fight, but they hate being sent into a conflict that is unwinnable. In this case, Mullen's point is that if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities the resulting destabilization and "political and economic chaos" would make our military's job harder. Well, I would like to know, for one thing, what he envisions in the way of instability and chaos that is any worse than the way things are already. But if he's talking about the extent and intensity of hostility toward American forces, then I suppose it could get worse. I mean, the Moslems could always get organized and form a united front -- now _that_ would be serious! But nothing Israel does or does not do is going to make this war any more justifiable or winnable.

On the other hand, maybe the message is that whereas a strike by Israel would be needlessly provocative, the same operation by us would be less so. This is actually arguable, but it is also consistent with the ongoing policy of us doing the Israeli's work for them -- a policy no less questionable now than it was in 1948. In any case, there is no silver bullet that will get us out of Iraq "with honor" -- that ship has sailed. In fact, it never sailed because it sank upon launching. There is no exit strategy because there was never meant to be one. The Near East is like Roach Motel -- we march in, but we don't march out. It is a gigantic sponge that soaks up more and more of our resources -- or will until we run out. And we see -- now that the corner has been turned on our economic dominance -- that that event is in our future, if things continue as they are. The curves will intersect eventually, and we will be forced to simply pack up and leave, and thus turn the Middle East back over to the people who live there, for better or worse.

Of course, Adm. Mullen is also assuming that an Israeli strike on Iran would open up a "third front" for us. Why this is necessarily the case escapes me. Let's say they do strike -- how does Iran retaliate? By actually sending troops over the border into Iraq? This seems less likely than the use of other, less direct means. But those means are being used already, to a fairly intense degree, and probably to the maximum extent possible. So what is supposed to change? Will they start firing missiles? But a halfway competent Israeli attack would take the missiles, and any other retaliatory means, out as well. So what is he talking about? That we would automatically send our own troops into Iran? But that would be our choice, not theirs. And again, what is the intent -- to discourage Israel and get them to "leave the driving to us" -- or to warn Iran about what will happen if they don't... what? Voluntarily give up their nuclear program? And what is the deadline? The election? The inauguration? So the meaning of the admiral's statements is unclear. All I know is that officers hate to lose battles, and they hate battles that they can't win. And the good ones hate to lose men. If those are his main concerns, then my hat is off, and I hope he and his colleagues continue to confront and contradict -- in a gentle, non-mutinous way, of course -- the fools and fanatics in the Bush administration.