Steven Vincent's death (especially his fatal op-ed piece) has reminded me that what might make sense militarily (invading Iran now, or at least neutralizing them militarily by other means) is often impossible -- even unthinkable -- politically.

General George S. Patton was thought insane for wanting to go after the Russians in the last days of World War II:

Eisenhower had told the Russians that Prague was in "their" zone and that the Americans would halt on a pre-arranged line west of Berlin.

Patton vigorously disagreed with Truman and Eisenhower’s policy, but he was helpless. Patton told the Secretary of State that, “We have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”

Such statements, which would be proven true in a few short months, were guaranteed to make Patton unpopular with the High Command. Other generals warned Patton, but he didn't care. He became increasingly convinced that it was his duty to inform the American people of what was being done in Europe. His decision was a dangerous one.

(Emphasis added.)

MacArthur conceived of the Korean war as a holy war; he kept talking about "unleashing Chiang Kai-shek," then holed up in his island fortress on Formosa, and launching atomic strikes, all of which made Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other UN countries involved very nervous. For Harry Truman and the Joint Chiefs, Korea was an exercise in containment, but that made it a very frustrating war for many Americans. It meant that in this war the United States was not aiming for total victory, but for more limited, and more ambiguous, results.

There is a tradition in American government that the military is subordinate to the civilian leaders. Generals do not make statements about policy without first clearing them with their superiors. But MacArthur, used to ruling in Japan, ignored the chain of command, and began writing letters about what the United States should do in Korea. He sent a letter to the Veterans of Foreign Wars saying that Formosa would be a fine place to launch an aggressive campaign against China. After the Chinese entered the war -- something MacArthur had assured Truman would never happen -- MacArthur wrote to Speaker of the House Joe Martin saying the United States could only win by an all-out war, and this meant bombing the Manchurian bases. So Harry Truman fired him, and evoked a firestorm of criticism from conservatives who believed Truman to be soft on communism. But there is no question that Truman was absolutely correct. Whether his overall policy was right or wrong, the American Constitution commits control of foreign policy to the president and not to the military. As Truman explained, avoidance of World War III while containing aggression was a difficult line to walk, but that was the policy the United States had decided upon. No soldier, not even a five-star general, could unilaterally challenge that policy without disturbing an essential element of democratic government.

Anyway, I'm neither a politician, nor a warrior, nor a war blogger. But for some time, I've been seeing clear evidence Iran is winning the Iraq war.

And the U.S. is letting them win.

(I think the moribund Republicans may be poised to let Hillary have the presidency in 2008, but's that's off subject. And it has nothing to do with war, of course....)

UPDATE: This interesting "news" item (from an extremely anti-Bush web site in New Zealand) claims that the United States will invade Iran before Christmas:

US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas

9 June 2004: The reason for the US break-up with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in.

An invasion plan prepared by the Pentagon conceives of amphibious attacks on Iran from the Arabian Sea, with a provocative US naval blockade in the Gulf of Oman to choke its sea-lanes of communications, and the British navy is developing three islands taken on a ten-year lease from Oman to give up to America in case of a war.

Besides these attacks from open waters, the US has also planned land assaults from Iraq, where its troops will be stationed for at least two years after the 30-June handover of sovereignty, and it will mount massive air reconnaissance and surveillance operations from its bases in Pakistan, whose leases will be extended when they expire in January 2005.

Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations.

While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact.

The US burned its hands with Shah Pehlavi of Iran, and in a sense was responsible for the Khomeini revolution, and the late former US president, Ronald Reagan, had to put himself out in his first term in the early Eighties to restore American morale. If it intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation – Iraq shows America has not the depth or patience to create a new civil society – and will only make matters worse. You have the Sunni Bathists and Shias up in arms in Iraq, and to that will add the Shias of Iran, and anyone who joins the battle will be exposed to sectarian fighting, as for example, pitched battles between Shias and Sunnis in Pakistani streets if Pakistani bases are used by American warplanes. Like wildfire, the Middle East and Muslim Asia would be engulfed by holy wars, and they will explode on the world with Al-Qaeda terror. It is frightening, the unfolding consequences of attacking Iran after the mayhem in Iraq.

There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown. Gaddafi’s own immediate family and a solid phalanx of world leaders, including Benazir Bhutto, convinced him to give up his weaponisation programme, and open up to the world. Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all.

The lingering question for me (despite my appalling ignorance) is whether an Islamic regime which tilts towards Iran is an idea worth its cost in American lives.

(I'm also worried that it might become a major election issue.... Such a thing could prove unendurable!)

UPDATE: I don't know how much to make of this, but Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett (who just lost a close race in Ohio) was allegedly avoided by Hillary Clinton during the race:

Hillary was in Columbus but she stayed away from Hackett. This is probably because Hillary is sooooo unpopular in OH2 even Hackett knows to keep his distance at least right here in Red State country.

MORE: Lastango at Daily Pundit is a lot more upset than I am, and he's issued a blistering indictment. Excerpt:

Preemptive war? If Saddam had disarmed he would still be in power in Iraq – only stronger, because UN sanctions would have been lifted. In view of the "out" the Administration offered the Iraqi regime, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Administration had no commitment to remove Saddam or gain a strategic position on the borders of Syria and Iran.

Observers all over the Right have spent years scratching their heads, asking How can the president leave Tenet and Mineta in office? Why is Powell allowed to undermine the president’s war on terror? Why is nothing being done to overthrow Iran’s regime? Fallujah???? Why are hundreds of soldiers of the world’s only military superpower being slaughtered year after year by terrorists supported by tiny Syria? How is it that Iran is free to back terror all over the world? We know the profile of Islamist terrorists – isn’t it insanity not to screen airline passengers that way? Why isn't the president's belief in a vigorous war against terror being translated into action?

The Right has been engaged in a mind-boggling act of self-deception, because its premise - that the administration intended to fight a global preemptive war against terror - is a fraud. How did rank-and-file Republicans keep believing Washington was committed to a preemptive war when even a WMD-free Iraq under Saddam would pose a grave danger? Didn’t the Right notice there were no WMD’s used to destroy the World Trade Center or smash a plane into the Pentagon? Or to strike at the Cole? Bomb the Khobar Towers? How did the Right reach a broad understanding that a nuclear armed Iran would be the greatest threat to our ability to fight terror, yet accept the Administration’s absolute inaction with nary a protest?

Back during the runup to the 2004 election, when Republicans were lashing out against every criticism of the Bush administration, a refusal to question the emperor's clothes was at least understandable. There was an election to win, and the Democrats would have misused any conservative disagreement with the Administration's policies, even though the Democrats themselves would have utterly failed in every part of the GWOT except attacking Afghanistan.

The election is long over. The Right will share culpability for the terror disease and any resulting catastrophe if it doesn't summon the energy and courage to recognize the facts.

(Via InstaPundit.)

UPDATE: Welcome InstaPundit readers! Thanks for coming, and many thanks to Glenn for the link.

MORE: A more recent post here on Iran's strategy for winning the war.