I am sure somewhere in the annals of military history there are wars that were just “quick excursion.” The Franco/Prussian War of 1870 was quick and decisive as a European war can be but it lasted almost a year. A quick excursion sounds more like a raid, capturing Osama Bin Laden: In and out before anybody knows you were in.
It is hard to believe that an air campaign bombing Iran with missiles, drones and smart bombs is a quick excursion. It is also hard to argue with the Trump Administration’s reasons for bombing Iran. Most people can agree that Iran’s religious leaders, for almost 50 years, have exhibited a national religious psychosis that has kept the country in an 8th Century frame of mind. Instead of bombing them back into the Stone Age are we trying to push them into the A/I age?
It also would be delusional to believe that if the current Iranian regime was to have nukes they would behave rational with them; or any other weapon of mass destruction, considering they don’t play nice with the weapons that they already have.
In many ways it makes sense that a regime change is in order. But we tried that already in Iran after World War II. The group we overthrew in the 1950s over threw our group in the late 1970s and now we are trying to overthrow them–again. Are we locked in some sort of irrational Twilight Zone circular reality that comes around like Haley’s Comet.
There is one point I would say is completely off the rails. This is the idea that it will be a short war. History indicates that we might be in for a longer haul, depending on objectives. And as crazy as it sounds it maybe over based sooner if we go by one man’s feelings. The rational for bombing, or going to war with Iran may seem logical. Practical? What is not rational or logical is to think a war can be won in two or three weeks simply by dropping bombs from above–or one man’s feelings.
Most wars have been irrational in terms of means or ends or both together. This is because choices for war are influenced by emotions, ideologies, domestic politics, and the tyranny of history, as well as by the more rational pursuit of material and strategic interests. Decisions for war have been almost invariably made by a handful of rulers and their advisors and entourages, and this is as true of democracies as authoritarian regimes.–Michael Mann, a Distinguished Research Professor of Sociology Emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, writes in Yale University Press
The Israelis have had a series of short duration wars with their Arab neighbors. In 1948 they dispatched their Arab foes in less than a year. Then in 1967 they fought a Seven Days War and then a twenty-day Yom Kippur War in 1973. In all of those wars Israel came out on top. I am not a historian by trade or a military history by practice; but, those engagements were called “wars.” I would call them battles in a continuous war starting with the UN carving out a hunk of Palestine and thus creating the state of Israel in 1947.
On a side note, when Western Powers have gotten involved militarily in the Mideast, it has not turned out well. The French and British found out during the Suez Crisis in 1956. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal and closed the Straight of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba. The Anglo/Franco force, along with the Israelis tried to regain control the Suez Canal, and at the same time topple Nasser. They left within a year. According to Britannica “Nasser emerged from the Suez Crisis a victor and a hero for the cause of Arab and Egyptian nationalism….(and) Britain and France, less fortunate, lost most of their influence in the Middle East as a result of the episode.”
In 1982 President Ronald Reagan had the bright idea of sending the Marines into the region. His thinking was they could stabilize the fighting that always seems to be going on in Lebanon. Lebanon is not a Central American “banana republic” or Grenada. American troops in the Mideast tend to attract more attention, particularly those with bombs and guns. We left after terrorist blew up the Marine’s barracks killing 241.
I am not going to argue the logic one way or the other on the UN decision to create Israel. It seemed like a good one after WWII and still is a good one. The geopolitical/ religious change in Palestine just hasn’t worked out like the 1940s planners thought.
So if we look at the Mideast starting in1947 there has been some sort of conflict going on for nearly 80 years. We have to look back to Europe circa 1330 to The Hundred Year’s War to find that kind of stamina (or blunt trauma stupidity) to sustain a war of that length. England and France fought a for a century in war that resulted in France chucking the Brits out of Continental Europe. (* see link below for a more comprehensive list of long-lasting wars)
“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
In 1568 there was an Eighty Year’s War or the Dutch Revolt. And some how in the same time frame Europe managed to roll in a Thirty Year’s, both ending in 1648. I am not sure what those wars settled but knowing just a tad of European history I would say it didn’t settle anything.
A student who paid attention in their middle school US History class might recall the French and Indian War being fought in North America in 1756. In Europe it was known the Seven Year’s War.
And, in April of 1861 President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to serve three month enlistments after Confederate forces bombed Fort Sumter. That three month enlistment was a pipe dream. Before long Lincoln was calling for 300,000 volunteers to serve three-year enlistments. Eventually Lincoln initiated a draft; and that still did not cover the entire war effort.
But those wars were fought without strategic air bombardment. Let’s jump to World War II, the ultimate regime change war. It was a war that looked like it would be over within a year. In fact there was an eight month period in Europe called the “Phony War” where Germany, France and Britain just sat there looking at each other–I dare you. No. I double dare you.
Finally, Hitler took up the dare and blitzed France. In a month they went through France as if it was a wedge of Brie cheese. They chased the British once again off the continent leaving the Wehrmacht to sit at the English Channel looking across at the White Cliffs of Dover. Hitler turned the war over to the Luftwaffe. Its commander Hermann Goering, thought he could bomb his way into England. The German army continued to lookacross the channel. They had no way of getting “boots on the ground” in England.
When the Luftwaffe gave up the British just kept calm and carried on. Hitler, however, turned his attention to the East. Before long he got snowed-in in Russia where his lightening warfare froze up and lost its thunder against the Red Army and the Russian winter.
Meanwhile, the US Army Air Corps was batting around a theory with British Bomber Command that the war could be won by simply bombing Germany around the clock, and hence into submission. By destroying the military industrial complex Germany could be brought to its knees—and possibly a regime change could be had. An arial theory that appears to still be a work in progress and may never be proven.
Without a doubt the the British and American air forces’s Combined Bomber Offensive played a significant role in Germany’s defeat, but it was two ground offensives Overlord (D-Day) on the Western Front and Russia’s Operation Bagration in Byelorussian (Belorussia) on the Eastern Front in June and August of 1944 that brought Germany to its knees. From there it was a race to Berlin and a regime change.
In the Pacific the Japanese Empire rolled up the Dutch the British and the Americans like a wet blanket in the early weeks of 1942. Within months they upended the control of just about the entire Pacific Ocean from the shores of Australia to India and the Himalayas and north to parts of the Aleutian Islands in the Bering Sea. Only after four bloody years of ground troops “island hopping” across the Pacific and two atomic bombs was there a regime change in Japan.
And did we not learn anything in Vietnam. After nine years, despite virtual air superiority over most of Vietnam, and some nifty named air campaigns like Rolling Thunder and Linebacker, and the belief that a country could be pushed back into the Stone Age with strategic areal bombardment, the US Air Force, Naval Aviation and more than 500,000 ground troops could not secure victory or a regime change. The best deal hoped for was hollowed out “Peace with Honor.”
A significant lesson concerned the ethical and political challenges associated with bombing campaigns, especially their impact on civilian populations and infrastructure. These issues prompted a reassessment of air campaign strategies to balance military objectives with humanitarian considerations. The war also demonstrated that air operations alone could not achieve decisive victory without effective integration with ground and naval forces.–armistia.com
I am not saying the Trump administration will not be successful in bombing Iran. At this point most of us have an only a vague idea of what success would be–in the short term or long term. We also need to be leery about first round successes. If military history bears us out it is a good chance this war will not end in few weeks or months. Which leads me to ask: What are 2,500 Marines going to do? If there is any consistency in military history, we might as well settle in for the long haul; and wait for a negotiated deal: “Peace with honor” has already been taken.”
* https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/04/30/these-are-20-longest-wars-in-history/
mystoryorhistory 