Whoa! Some DoD downers are developing cold feet about letting Israel sock it to Iran?

"A classified war game held this month to assess the American military's capabilities to respond to an Israeli attack on Iran forecast that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials."

-- from "Pentagon Finds Perils for U.S. if Israel Were to Strike
Iran," by the NYT's Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker

by Ken

Sharp as tacks those boys -- and the odd girl, I guess -- in the Pentagon. You can't slip anything past them! Here they are charged with the awesome responsibility of gaming a "defense" strategy against Iran, which of course means deciding whether it would be better for us to attack the SOBs or leave it to the Israelis, and some of them are conscientious enough to call for a time out and express something less than unguarded enthusiasm for at least one of the two available options. (It is, of course, a foregone conclusion that somebody's got to attack Iran.)

And I do mean "gaming." That's how they do it, the generals and admirals and all their buddies in the defense-industrial complex. They do war games. It's probably a little more sophisticated than the average paintball game TV writers are all the time inserting into their plots, presumably on the theory that viewers aren't already bored enough.

Okay, I see we're not calling it a "game" so much as a "military simulation." I guess that's kind of like paintball played by think-tank geeks. Paintball with paintnukes.

Now, you remember those "officials," the ones who've been blabbing to the Timesguys about the "classified war simulation" (apparently not wildly concerned about its classifiedness)? And told them how the exercise "forecast that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials"? Those officials.

The officials said the so-called war game was not designed as a rehearsal for American military action -- and they emphasized that the exercise's results were not the only possible outcome of a real-world conflict. But the game has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policymakers over the consequences of any possible Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to those within the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.

Hey, this isn't just us left-wingers shooting the breeze, speculating about . . . well, these same exact eventualities. No, this is Pentagon generals and who-all, with supercomputers and God only knows what other kinds of super-cool game stuff. What did you think, they were just playing Risk?

The results of the war game were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command exercise or who were briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials, General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first-strike would likely have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.

The two-week war game, called "Internal Look," played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by launching its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that America's arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program -- if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation.

Our Timesguys explain that the game wasn't really mounted to formulate policy. It "was designed specifically to test internal military communications and coordination among battle staffs in the Pentagon, Tampa, where the headquarters of the Central Command is located, and in the Persian Gulf in the aftermath of an Israeli strike." However, "the exercise was written to assess a pressing, potential, real-world situation." And "in the end, the war game reinforced to military officials the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of a strike by Israel, and a counterstrike by Iran," according to, you know, the officials (wink, wink).

The Timesguys go on to talk about differences between American and Israeli intelligence services about the nature and imminence of the Iranian threat, and also the risks involved in making boom in Iran. (Favorite quote: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak telling an Israeli audience that the consequences of such an undertaking wouldn't be all that big a deal, even while allowing that "a war is no picnic." Good one, Ehud!) They also note that the simulation generally assumed that as far as the Iranians are concerned, there isn't a whole lot of difference between devils -- America, Israel, all pretty much the same deal.

The Timesguys also give us some background to this Internal Look extravaganza, which "has long been one of Central Command's most significant planning exercises, and is carried out about twice a year to assess how the headquarters, its staff and command posts in the region would respond to various real-world situations." Oh, and by the way: "In December 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who was the top officer at Central Command, used Internal Look to test the readiness of his units for the coming invasion of Iraq." I'll let you insert your own joke about that one.


GEE, IF IT'S NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA (FOR
US) IF ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN, THEN WHAT?

This isn't all that difficult to work out, provided you've been paying attention. The good news, you'll recall, is that there's not one but two options for defending ourselves against the Iranian military menace. The bad news is that that leaves only one alternative if for some reason the Pentagon boys and girls turn thumbs down on having the Israelis attack Iran. Even here there's good news of a sort: Since there's only the one alternative, we don't have to waste time with, you know, whiny debates and naysaying.

It's just bombs away! Unless, perhaps, Willard Inc. becomes our commander in chief, in which case he might be persuaded to just set some sort of ambush when those treacherous Iranians make their move into Syria. This would probably disappoint the saber-rattlers of the great Right-Wing Noise Machine, who are just itching for another invasion, having apparently lost interest in the one we're still trying to disengage from, in Afghanistan.

The disengaging is rarely as entertaining as the engaging, and somehow rarely seems to work out the way game-playing military theorists theorize.

#