Dumb Presidents

Shock and Awe

Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense under President George W Bush, would be pleased.  President Trump’s attack on Iran, using highly sophisticated B-2 bombers combined with submarine launched cruise missiles, is exactly the kind of operation Rumsfeld would have proposed.  He was the ultimate “Neo-Con”, a true believer that US military might could alter the world.  Not only would it be safer for the United States, but “regime change” could improve America’s economic standing as well.  

The ”Rumsfeld Doctrine” was based on the military concept of “shock and awe”.  Rather than the long-term concentration of forces used in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, with 40 some countries allied against Iraq and months of preparation, Rumsfeld wanted to use an overwhelming force strike to topple the enemy leader immediately – shock and awe.  

In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, 160,000 troops marched in following massive airstrikes, including specifically targeted attacks on the Iraqi Dictator, Saddam Hussein.  In less than a month, US forces were in the streets of Baghdad.  Not only was Hussein deposed, but he was ultimately captured, tried, and put to death.

Don Rumsfeld died in 2021.  But using massive American armaments, the “Bunker Buster” bombs, with a targeted airstrike launched around the world from Missouri with stealth aircraft would have been right up his alley.

What’s Next?

The “flip side” of the Rumsfeld Doctrine was the answer to the question:  “What happens next?”  In Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States coalition deposed the existing governments, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.  But once that leadership was gone, who would govern?  That turned out to be a much thornier question for the US.  In both countries, the “stood up” governments failed to survive.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban waged a twenty-year war to regain power.  They are in charge today.

And in Iraq, the power vacuum created by the removal of Hussein, led to three actions.  First, it allowed a huge increase in Iranian power.  Iraq and Iran were at war with each other for a decade before, and taking Iraq out of the equation let Iran focus its goals on effecting the rest of the Middle East.  Second, the ineffective government in Iraq allowed the extremist ISIS movement to gain momentum.  ISIS ultimately became a prime target for US troops, with the worse fighting of the war occurring years after the first “shock and awe” shots in the battle, against ISIS, not Hussein’s Iraqi Republican Guard.

Bunker Busters

Saturday the United States launched an attack against Iran, an act of war.  The goal was to destroy the ability of Iran to develop nuclear weapons, something that was a huge point of contention in the world.  No one (other than Iran, North Korea and maybe Russia) thinks that Iran should have a nuclear weapon.  

The US attack definitely did damage.  The main area where Iran enriches uranium, refining it to the 90% level needed for nuclear weapons, was the target of six “bunker buster” bombs.  Certainly that site is damaged, perhaps destroyed.  The whole thing is hundreds of feet under a mountain, and it’s going to be difficult to get accurate damage assessments.  Whether the uranium on site, already at 60%, was removed prior to the bombing is unclear.  And, whether Iran has other alternate sites for the enrichment process is unknown.

Three D’s

This weekend, I listened to a reporter describe an interview he did with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, years ago.  Israel has been worrying about Iran’s nuclear capacity for decades, and had the capability of disrupting it for most of that time. Barak described the Israeli dilemma as “The Three D’s”.  Israel, like the United States today, were confident that they would win the “day of the attack” ‘D-One’, and disrupt Iranian nuclear development.  And they were confident that they could survive whatever the Iranian immediate response would be, the Day-After, ‘D-Two’. 

Barak said the problem was ‘D-Three’, the decade after the attack.  What were the long term consequences of attacking Iran?  What would happen if the Ayatollah was removed, a “decapitation” strike.  The United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq showed the dangers of trying to change leadership from the outside, euphemistically called “nation building”.

Unknown Unknown

Don Rumsfeld may had said it best: 

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones.^”

The “unknown unknown” today is what Iran’s response will be to what likely was a devastating United States attack.   But the one thing we know for sure is that the next step is out of the control of the Trump Administration.  They’ve “played their cards” (as the President likes to say).  Now we are waiting for the “known and unknown knowns” of the Iranian response.  Will they negotiate?  Will they launch missile attack and US bases and ships?  Or will Iran use its remaining Hamas and Hezbollah cells to attack?

Vice President JD Vance exuded confidence (hubris?) on the Sunday news show, Meet the Press.  When asked why Trump launched this attack now, when prior Presidents determined not to do so, he said: “Back then, we had dumb Presidents.”  Don Rumsfeld sounded just as confident as the bombs fell on Baghdad in 2003.  We do know our Nation is preparing for Barak’s Day Two.  The “unknown unknown” is, what about Day-Three – the next decade?  Is there a “plan” from the Trump Administration?  

Or will Trump be another relegated to the JD’s “dumb President” list?