Deterrence works; war doesn't

Deterrence works
USA Today
November 28, 2007

Letter as printed:

Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons — and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is — Americans should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean, surgical strike ("Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," Opposing view, Iran debate, Nov. 20).

Any attempt to launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil America in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further and expose us to greater risks abroad and at home.

Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This is a fatuous claim because the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

With the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, America has come to accept the logic that a president can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war.

There can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war.

Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. America had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or in China when those countries developed nuclear weapons than it now has in Iran. Past presidents have wisely ignored calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right.

Deterrence will work with Iran, too. Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that it would be destroyed if it ever used a nuclear weapon against the USA, Israel or any other American ally.

(Overly long) Letter as written:

Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
(Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," November 20, 2007). Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is, we should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean "surgical strike." Any attempt to launch a massive attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil us in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further, and expose us to even greater risks abroad and at home, for Iran would be a far more dangerous foe than any group of Iraqi insurgents.

Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This fatuous claim is incredible, since conservatives from his own American Enterprise Institute and other conservative think tanks supposedly hold sacrosanct the principle of "strict construction" of the Constitution, which very clearly assigns to Congress and not the Presidency the power to declare war. With the advent of ICBMs, America has come to accept the logic that a President can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war, but there can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war. Surely we recognize by now that Iraq has proven the folly of recklessly starting a war without a reasoned national debate.

Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. We had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or China when they developed nuclear weapons than we now have in Iran, yet Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely ignored similar calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right. Deterrence will work with Iran, too, for Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that they and their country would be destroyed if they or their proxies -- and we could determine the origin of any bomb used, no matter how anonymous the group might be which actually detonated it -- ever used a nuclear weapon against the U.S., Israel, or any other American ally.

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 28 November 2007