Tom Ricks's Inbox

Tom Ricks's Inbox

Army Maj. Bruce W. Terry, in a paper written last year at the Army's Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., explains why the United States doesn't have much of a ground military option for dealing with Iran:

* * *

A full ground invasion and occupation of Iran is only marginally feasible, but it is not acceptable for the object of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, though the assurance of stopping Iran's nuclear development makes this COA [course of action] suitable. An invasion would take a minimum of four years, under ideal circumstances, just to mobilize the force needed to execute the invasion. The mobilization would likely require conscription to fill the 1.25 million soldiers needed for an occupation, and the casualties would be in the tens of thousands each year for each year of occupation. Financially, the cost would be disproportionate compared to any other course of action unless it is weighed against a future Iranian nuclear attack against a city. Adding to the cost, Iran could be expected to unleash the most extreme retaliation possible. Given these costs, the only major advantage of the invasion COA is the certainty with which the Iranian nuclear program would be stopped. . . .

An invasion and occupation is also not acceptable due to the human and financial costs. The imposition of conscription, the loss of American lives, and the financial burden of funding the occupation of a nation of 69 million is disproportionate to any goal except stopping Iran's imminent employment of nuclear weapons . . . .

In conclusion, the various land power options to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities are either not feasible, not acceptable, or not suitable to confront the Iranian nuclear threat. The time and resources a ground invasion would require are out of proportion to the potential costs of an airpower option, and the potential increase in certainty of effects does not appreciably increase without resort to the very costly invasion and occupation option.

* * *

Tom Ricks is The Post's military correspondent. This feature aims to give readers a snapshot of the conversations about Iraq, Afghanistan and other matters that play out in Ricks's e-mail inbox. Have an interesting document? Send it to TheInbox@washpost.com.