Part 2 of an analysis of Seymour Hersh's "The Iran Plans"

The alternate title to this post is "Iran: Bush doesn't even need a General Ripper."

Excerpt 8

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

*******

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

So, there are operations already under way...Let's go back to Excerpt 4, where I stated that Bush's "diplomacy" was an example of leaving us with no options or no good options. These military operations could very well turn into another example. Recall that in Excerpt 5, the military planner said “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” Aye, but here's the rub: once shown, a threat is no longer a threat if not used. For instance, recall the buildup to the Iraq war. We underwent this huge, rapid military buildup while Bush was "using diplomacy." Once we had located all our troops, supplies, equipment, etc. in the Gulf region, they had to be used. Otherwise, any threat posed by our buildup would have been empty, and from that point on we would have been dealing from a position of weakness.

Let me put this another way. Any move, ploy, or bluff made or attempted necessarily limits your options from there on out. The bigger, bolder, and more uncompromising the move, the greater the subsequent limitation. This is something of which the Bush administration has no comprehension. Or do they? Perhaps their SOP is to make a decision and then make sure that no other choice is possible.

Let me put this yet another way. In a negotiation (and diplomacy involves a great deal of negotiation), it is not a good idea to start by presenting what in effect is your final offer. If you do that, you then have nowhere to go. Not only does this limit your own subsequent actions, but your opponent also knows this. Even if you start with a position which is not your final offer but is close, you have given your opponent information about what you can do later. In other words, you have tipped your hand, and now your are stuck with it. To me, this is a bad way to start out--unless 1) you have definitive information on which to base your actions, or 2) you have already made your ultimate decision.

We did not have anything close to definitive information on Iraq, but Bush acted as if we did, and look where we are now. We don't have definitive information on Iran, but look what Bush is doing now. It didn't work the first time, but it looks like George is determined to make that round hole conform to his square peg. And the truly scary thing is how far he might be willing to go to do so.

Before discussing that topic, I will return to the military operations currently ongoing. At this point, they seem relatively prudent. They seem to be preliminary, preparatory measures. However, they are approaching that line of becoming a threat which has to be used. If the operations increase in scale, frequency, size, etc., we could be looking at a repeat of Iraq.

Excerpts 9, 10, 11, and 12

According to Hersh's sources, the Bush administration is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

Apparently this is due to our lack of information about these sites, meaning that the only way to make sure we would take out everything that needs to be taken out is to use a nuclear weapon.

For more information, Hersh went back to the anonymous Pentagon adviser on the war on terror:

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.”

Notice that this source says that the civilians in the Pentagon are interested in using nukes. Once again, these are the same boneheads that brought us the Iraq war and the same guys who did such an abysmally poor job of planning for the aftermath. And now they want to use nuclear weapons. But if they are to be stopped, who is going to do that?

This same adviser says that there is significant opposition to this idea in the military:

He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

I wish I shared his optimism. The Bush administration has consistently showed that it will listen to no one on matters of national security. Once a given course has been deemed worthy, all efforts go toward making it happen and silencing those who are against it. Still, it is encouraging that the military brass appears to be opposing this literal "nuclear option."

How did the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons gain favor in the first place? According to the Pentagon adviser,

the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

Hersh then explains that the chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider. In January 2001, Schneider was part of a group at the National Institute for Public Policy which issued a report recommending the use of tactical nuclear weapons in limited circumstances. That group included the following men who are currently high-ranking Bush administration officials: Stephen Hadley (National-Security Adviser), Stephen Cambone (Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence), and Robert Joseph (Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security).

For Schneider's more current views on the use of nuclear weapons, check out this paper by him published in Spring 2004. In the paper, Schneider argues that there needs to be a "policy shift" from Cold War deterrence to an ability to put another country's "WMD at risk before their operational use," which is a way of saying "pre-emptive strike." He also says that "the unique effects of nuclear weapons have a role in this policy under a narrow range of circumstances[.]" Schneider also feels that "the planning process for 21st-century security requires that nuclear weapons be more integrated with advanced conventional weapons and forces."

And don't think that Schneider is some rogue without support in the upper echelons of DoD. In his Spring 2004 paper, Schneider cites the identification of a need for a "policy shift" to the 1997-1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, also known as...the Rumsfeld Commission. Also, four years ago today, the Washington Post published an article entitled "Nuclear-Tipped Interceptors Studied," and the first paragraphs certainly are interesting:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has opened the door to the possible use of nuclear-tipped interceptors in a national missile defense system, reviving an idea that U.S. authorities rejected nearly three decades ago as technically problematic and politically unacceptable.

William Schneider Jr., chairman of the Defense Science Board, said yesterday that he had received encouragement from Rumsfeld to begin exploring the idea as part of an upcoming study of alternative approaches to intercepting enemy missiles.

"We've talked about it as something that he's interested in looking at," Schneider said in an interview.

(emphasis added). Let's review. The idea of actually using tactical nuclear weapons started with the Rumsfeld Commission. In January 2001, the current head of the Defense Science Board, National Security Adviser, Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security all signed a report recommending the use of such weapons. In 2002, Rumskull--as Secretary of Defense--encouraged Schneider to look into using nuclear tipped missiles. In Spring 2004, Schneider was still advocating the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons. All this lends credibility to Hersh's source, anonymous though he may be.

This is damn scary stuff. What is most scary is the fact that the decision lies with George W. Bush. There are many reasons for my fear, but for now, consider the following. "Shock and Awe" was supposed to make Iraq docile. It did not work. I'll bet Bush is thinking "We just didn't use a big enough shock, and all we got that's bigger are nookuler bombs."

I'm not kidding.

Oh--about the alternate title to this post. General Ripper is the character in "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" who loses his mind and orders the entire U.S. bomber fleet to drop its nuclear bombs on Russia. In the movie, the President never wanted the nuclear crisis created by the military. And now--if Hersh is correct--we have the military trying to keep the President from creating a nuclear crisis.

Oh, the purity and essence of irony...