Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?

Recommend (9) Comments (3)

We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than six years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq.

Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless--it is a tragically meek pretense at war. Observe that, in targeting Iraq--not a major backer of the jihadists--Washington left the chief enemy--Teheran--untouched.

And the campaign in Iraq was not even aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein’s regime posed to us. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets, such as power plants, and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers--a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission.

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers,” putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win, or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington’s self-crippling policies. Crusades like Iraq can lead only to disasters.

The solution to the growing Iranian threat is not another selfless mission like Iraq. The solution is to wage a war to permanently end Teheran's Islamist regime.