Escalation Special

by digby

Yglesias noted the prevailing CW in Washington that the military is opposed to an Iran campaign (which I thought was true as well, until Seymour Hersh reported the new rationale for bombing yesterday.) He points out that this view may still be true among the Army, but that the Air Force would love to get a piece of this medal-making action:

[I]t’s important to avoid overstating the degree of military opposition to a bomb Iran policy. As best I can tell, the Army is dead-set against it. But the Army wouldn’t be carrying the mission out anyway. It’d be shocking for the Air Force to suddenly come to appreciate the strategic limits of air power. In their minds, bombing Iran won’t compound the error of Iraq; rather, it’ll show the manifest benefits of doing things their way rather than getting bogged-down into an Army-style quagmire.

Exactly. But I think when they were talking about only taking out the nuclear facilities there was far less excitement among the flyboys. After all, it would be a one-off. This bombing of “terrorist” sites has a far higher likelihood of being an extended operation:

A limited bombing attack of this sort “only makes sense if the intelligence is good,” the consultant said. If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.”

After what we’ve seen in the last few years, I don’t think we can count on the intelligence being “good”, do you? That’s one of our biggest problems going forward. The US has zero credibility after all the stove-piping and phony UN pageantry:

There is, he added, “a widespread belief in London that Tony Blair’s government was sold a bill of goods by the White House in the buildup to the war against Iraq. So if somebody comes into Gordon Brown’s office and says, ‘We have this intelligence from America,’ Brown will ask, ‘Where did it come from? Have we verified it?’ The burden of proof is high.

”

And an additional problem:

Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.

The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.

That makes sense and it points out the huge dangers involved in escalating this war to Iran. Nobody trusts anybody. And everyone thinks Cheney is nuts. That’s how catastrophic errors in judgment are made.

And in case anyone thinks the congress will ratchet this down read this. It’s truly heartwarming to hear all these right wingers express their support for labor and human rights. In Iran. I’m sure we’ll see more heartfelt bi-partisan measures to build the humanitarian case for bombing.

.