- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
When I read this article, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry at the total lack of substance in the piece. The complete lack of understanding about use of military forces is a joke (campaigns are based on logistics - not driving your army across the border), total lack of understanding of the people (the Iraqis are Arab, not Persian - and while they may be Shiite, they certainly do not follow the same leaders) and the situation (much huffing and puffing on both sides - sometimes called bargaining in the middle east). What other motivation for having dancers prance around on TV with "enriched Uranium" vials? - I hope that they have a good long term medical plan after that stunt.
Other than just a very poor attempt to bash Bush - I see little grounding in reality for this scenario. All this started when Seymour Hearsh revealed that the Pentagon was studying taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Would that be so surprising if they had been studying doing the same to the Chinese? But then, the EU is on the case negotiating for us - so why worry? Look at the great job they did in Bosnia before that illegal war.
What I do see though is a failure on Mr Conason's part to see that the opposite is indeed happening - the Iranians are in a proxy war with the US in Iraq through the militias (Mr. Sadr's comes to mind). You can rightly complain that the US should have never allowed the militias to be formed in the first place in Iraq, but don't act like the Iranian side is completely innocent in this game.
