Middle East conflicts suffer from a lack of ‘post campaign planning’ by the US - Patrick Mercer
Very shortly we’ll see how President Trump intends to conclude Operation Epic Fury. The choice will not be his alone because this is a partnership between America and Israel, the full depths of which are invisible to most of us. And, of course, Iran has quite a lot to say about things too.
Now, the Trump haters - of whom there are many around the world - are trumpeting the fact that the whole endeavour has not been sown up within a week or two. That might have been anticipated because, cynically, most of us expect clashes in the Middle East to be brief.
The fact that there is no immediate end in sight to the fighting and that President Trump’s apparent rashness has plunged energy supplies and, consequently, world markets into chaos seems to be a source of masochistic joy to some. And it has to be said, there is every sign that the Pentagon’s and NATO’s extensive intelligence staff have underestimated the opposition. Iran is no Venezuela: this was never likely to be just a skirmish.
And that is baffling. The USA and its partners planned the moment of victory in the Second World War meticulously: there was a careful decision to demand unconditional surrender when a compromise could have ended the fighting sooner. But no, the political and military planners of the day realised that triumph, not just the enemy’s defeat, had to be cautiously and thoughtfully handled.
Of course, they had the debacle of 1918/19 in the forefront of their minds, but in simple terms the Marshall Plan was a model of foresight and underpinned the decades of peace and relative stability that followed.
So why wasn’t the precedent of 1945 followed after the invasion of Iraq? With a blueprint for success readily available and adaptable, why was that country allowed to spiral into violence and hardship?
Similarly, why did the US-led NATO partnership make such a terrible hash of the Afghanistan adventure? It wasn’t as though there was a lack of strategic experience there. Now that particular piece of pusillanimity and political misjudgement has emboldened not just Russia in Ukraine, but all of the West’s opponents.
The point is, our military staff colleges all run programmes for senior officers labelled ‘post campaign planning’. On these courses brass hats are thoroughly drilled to understand that winning both a war and a peace must have political, financial and social dimensions that go far beyond simple military matters. In other words, officers are trained in the design and development of Marshall Plan look-alikes for whatever might lie ahead.
Now, though, it looks as if the White House may be guilty yet again of only designing the business of blood and fire rather than the consequences. Was there no plan made for what happens when a fifth of the world’s oil supplies are indefinitely stuck in the Gulf of Hormuz?
Did no one expect the pressure from every direction that would be exerted on America to solve the problem that they had created as quickly as they had caused it? There’s an old saying: the one thing that decides US elections is the price of a gallon of petrol. Well, now Mr Trump needs to look at his own internal troubles just as much as those coming from outside.
The greatest irony of the current situation is that Russian oil is now giving the Kremlin a huge financial boost. Money’s flooding in as sanctions are eased on the Russian oil tankers that are already at sea and further relaxations are being discussed. Much of that unexpected money, of course, will be ploughed into the ‘Special Military Operation’ against Ukraine, making many wonder exactly what the last four years’ killing and horror has really been about.
Meanwhile, there are hints from Washington that the end is in sight, that the President may soon be in a position to declare ‘victory’. I can’t help but be reminded of President Bush’s announcement of ‘mission accomplished’ after the invasion of Iraq and how hopelessly premature that was. No, for there to be any sense of ‘victory’ against Iran, the US is going to have to deploy troops to seize all the ground around and islands within the Gulf of Hormuz so that another blockade can never be mounted.
Certainly, several thousand US Marines with all their landing craft, helicopters and armour are already on their way, but ask yourself, is America willing to pay the blood price that will follow? Perhaps these troops are just there to be a muscular lever on a regime that, unquestionably, has already been severely dented. Perhaps… but there’s plenty of fight left in the Iranians.
Whilst a compromise at this stage (if such a thing is even possible) may serve to unblock the waterways, steady the markets and give the White House a moment of glory, it just won’t last. All the death and damage of the last few weeks would simply be a stepping stone for the next bout.
The US themselves have recognised that even a weakened regime will still be able to attack - or just threaten - shipping very easily. To underline that the Iranian Parliament’s Speaker Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf said that things will never return to pre-war conditions. Ghalibaf is implying that Iran will continue to use blockades to coerce its enemies and deter future attacks.
No, the solution has now got to be conclusive and that means a bloodier and much more disruptive campaign than the world expects. Like it or not Britain’s already involved: we may be half-hearted about it, but I doubt that Iran will care.
But are we ready for the fear and sacrifices ahead?
Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army Colonel.