On Tuesday’s RealClearPolitics podcast, the panel debated the arguments for sending U.S. ground troops to Iran from Seth Cropsey’s Wall Street Journal op-ed: “American Credibility Is on the Line in Iran” “Oh, we’ve got to put boots on the ground, or it’s total American collapse? That’s the kind of thinking that got us into Vietnam,” Tom Bevan said. “Those are not the only two choices.” Andrew Walworth argued: “I think we should eliminate the term ‘boots on the ground’ from serious discussion. Deploying American troops abroad is something we haven’t had problems with in the past.” “There are so many shades of options between an Iraq-style occupation and doing nothing but air power,” he said. “The administration should have those options, and they should be making decisions based on strategic calculations — not on whether or not there are boots.” “The real question is: what are we doing?” Walworth said. “Have we reached the objective and should we leave-or have we just bloodied Iran’s nose while leaving the regime intact and more dangerous?” “The regime is still there, they’ve still got their nuclear material, they will rebuild, and they’re madder than ever? So, have we just made the situation worse if we leave right now? And the straits are mined!” “That depends on how you viewed Iran as a threat to begin with,” Bevan said, warning that expectations of immediate regime collapse were always unrealistic. “The idea that people would storm the streets and take over was always wishful thinking.” Walworth added: “The idea that three weeks in we’d say, ‘the regime hasn’t fallen, let’s get out’-of course it was going to take longer!” “You mean you can’t just displace a government that’s been in power for 47 years with a million men under arms?” Carl Cannon said. “If you leave now, with this new ayatollah-a man whose father, wife, and sister you just killed-do you think he’s going to want peace? It seems to me you would have made the situation a lot worse.”
RealClearPolitics Videos