Here We Go Again!
It doesn’t seem that with our current leadership in DC (a little tyrant in the White House and an opposition party afraid to oppose him), it is going to be possible to avoid a confrontation with Iran, and by confrontation, I mean an all out aerial assault by US military forces on that country. I expect to see the same kind of trumped up intelligence, the same kind of fear based rhetoric and the same kind of misleading public statements that we saw in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, recycled this time around with Iran.
There is a very real debate to be had about the threat of allowing Iran to become a nuclear power and how the international community can best help create peace and stability in the Middle East, but that is not the debate that this country will have as we head toward war with Iran. Instead, our politicians will debate what it means to be “tough on terrorism”. It’s sad really, but American politics is not about what’s best for the country anymore, it’s about who can come out on top and with the most money to show for their efforts.
War used to be a serious topic and war was once viewed as a last resort, a step not to be taken lightly by a democratic country. With this administration, wars are started in the middle of the night, achieved through arm-twisting and manipulation and then sold to the American people after the fact using any justification that fits the current mood. We have become the aggressor country thanks to the Bush doctrine. How American is that?
posted by The (liberal)Girl Next Door @ 1:18 PM
11 Comments:
As the Great Decider once said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh, er, fool me twice...um. Can't fool me twice!"
LGND is quite right. Iran is deja vu all over again. Seymour Hersh divulged The Iran Plans back in April. The plans looked distressingly like a repeat of the Iraq War.
There are some scary lines in the Hersh article. Consider: "The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war." Or this line, "When I asked the government consultant ... he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, “Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off."
Attacking Iran is more macho nonsense left over from the Reagan Years. "Unfinished Business", they might say. But Iran is a very large and complex country with a very powerful military. If Bush can't secure Afghanistan, if his Iraq is descending into Civil War, if Hezbollah couldn't be finished off by Israel, why would anyone think he could pull off an even bigger military operation?
I think it's important to note that the Brass want nothing to do with this. The people trained in geopolitics and military strategy all think this is "Nuts". But why listen to pros when there are chickenhawks with "best case scenarios".
Clausewitz called War Politics by other means. The Republicans don't really know any kind of politics but lying and dirty tricks, so I don't have much hope for diplomatic finesse. And war is costly, unpredictable, and --to quote Sherman-- Hell!
The Prime Minister of Iraq just made a trip to Tehran. Those Pentagon war planners don't think Iran can hit back if attacked. They seem to forget that Iran knows exactly where 140,000 US troops are tied up. Imagine Rumsfeld's jealousy when Iran is the one greeted by Iraq as the liberator he wanted to be.
Laura ought to put Kenny Rogers' The Gambler on Dubya's iPod because he desperately needs to "know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run."
I encourage you to read Tigerhawk today. He has posted on proxy wars and posits what we have perhaps forgotten: " At some point in the last sixty years, the world forgot that an act of war is an act of war, whether or not waged through a proxy, even if there is no looming danger of nuclear exchange."
Yes, I know that Tigerhawk is right wing and believes in Just War Theory but one can find truth on both sides of the aisle. My concern with his article is the evidence of proxy wars to justify a direct attack. We would be better served to thwart Iran's initiatives thru other means.
I have not yet decided if there is any moral justification for attacking Iran. It is hypocritical to deny Iran the ability to conduct proxy wars when that was the US and Soviet position for the entire Cold War. However, hypocrisy is not the issue.
I am opposed to pre-emptive aggressor policies and would not support an attack on Iran without a direct causal link from Iran to an attack on the US. I do not see this moral position developing.
And yet, the ability of todays weapons to create massive destruction is a factor for concern from any country (even the US) who would be an aggressor nation.
The Bush Doctrine is clear and a direct attack on Iran is within its scope. But I never supported the Bush Doctrine and do not now.
Today, at the UN, may be the day the decision is made regarding the Iran and the US relationship. Let us all hope for the best and peace.
LG,
So, what's your solution to the Iranian problem?
A.
When wars become ideologically driven, they become products which are marketted and sold to the populace.
Once the decision has been made concerning the desire for war, the information required to make the decision more palatable to the citizens is gathered and manufactured.
There appears to be a screening process where information which is not condusive to the war agenda is ommitted.
So there is rarely a debate about whether the war is necessary, as the marketting for the necessity of war is conducted after the decision for war is made.
If the marketting is successful, people don't question the viability or validity of the product.
Oh, people, what are you talking about... I appreciate the emotion, but really, the tyrant - that SOB up there is a tyrant??? No, it is just all of us being idiots and letting them rule us...
Sorry, guys, but was nice to come across this place...
JR
Is there an "Iranian Problem"? President Ahmadinejad is not a tyrant; the Iranian government has a diffuse power structure, unlike the USA, and Ahmadinejad is not an absolute ruler. Indeed, under the Iranian constitution Ayatollah Khomeini is superior to Ahmadinejad.
LGND strikes again with another timely insight about the state of American national leadership.
Judging by Tuesday's announcement (Sept 19) from the DHS, they've made it easier to take down America from within our own government by covert operatives working for corporate fascists.
As in previous posts, you're right on top of the issues pointing out for your audience the unnecessary travesties President AWOL has inficted on the American public the past five years.
The DHS finally filled the post of assistant secretary for cybersecurity two years after the position was created by Secretary Michael Chertoff.
The position has been neglected because BushCo hasn't figured out a way for private contractors to profit from this security risk yet.
By hardening our cybersecurity defenses, I'm not referring to NSA spying on our Internet connections but a terrorist attack on the whole internet infrastructure which negates the system all at once.
It would cripple both the government and public communications networks and darken computer screens across America making us vulnerable to a terrorist attack without being able to recognize the magnitude of the assault.
One security expert summarized Bush's complaceny in the matter this way:
"Part of the problem is that the government is simply not as interested as it should be in paying for online defense," according to Marcus Sachs, a former Bush administration advisor on Internet security.
"It's kind of hard to convince the Congress to continue to fund cybersecurity efforts when the entire nation is shaking in its boots over chemical weapons and
dirty bombs," says Sachs, who now works for SRI International, a research organization in Menlo Park, California.
"We've not had any attributable cyberstuff that you could trace back to terrorism ... it's hard to make a case as to why we need to be worried about it."
Guess Bush has had a change of heart since we're in an election year and ordered Chertoff to fill the post before the public notices all his tough talk about defending the homeland is just a lot of hot air.
BTW ... the position was filled by a California college professor currently teaching security issues and who's advised White House Republicans previously on the subject.
His advice was probably ignored on 911 but I'm speculating Bush felt the best way to shut him up was hire him again. Now he can't say anything because it's an issue that might jeopardize national protection in a time of war.
With this appointment and the previous one of the Air Force General schooled in security threats, Bush has in place the means necessary to cause an entire communications blackout across America from the TV and radio airwaves, telephone, satellite and cell phone transmissions and the Internet.
When and if it happens, expect him to blame it on a terrorist attack although it may be actually originating from the underground bunker of Dick Cheney.
Regardless, he now has two security specialists beholden to him who know how to implement this strategy if ordered to do so.
Iran's conspiracy theorist president is no threat to anyone. certainly the 25,000+ jews who call iran home would be the canary in the mine or whatever and they haven't been massacred as far as i know.
More to the point, we attack Iran and:
1. oil goes to 200$ a barrel, bring the world economy to a stop.
2. islamic terror explodes in an unprecedented...explosion of terrorism!
fuck the neo cons. who can save us? where is superman?
The closest thing I've seen to Superman this week is the adorable president of Venezuela. How can you not like a guy who waves about Noam Chomsky's latest book and tells everyone to read it. He should team up with Oprah. And when he said, "And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today." That was the best line of the day.
I recommend everyone read his speech. I'd rather share a beer with Chavez than Bush any day. Hugo Chavez addresses the UN
Sorry, I that link didn't work. This should: Chavez addresses the UN
david- I'm glad both amhedenajad and chavez are telling the US to mind their own business, but any influence they have comes from oil, not a real vision. as a result I find it hard to be impressed. but again, they're right on soverignty and I wish all the middl eeastern and latin america countries would follow suit.
Post a Comment
<< Home