Letters to the Editor
-
The most telling phrase....
Republican presidential candidates this side of Ron Paul are already lining up in loyal support, because they have to.
This is where it becomes clear that our country is suffering from an illness. No one is allowed to speak the truth because its politically imprudent. Instead, the public has to be fed a succession of comforing lies all based on the ridiculous assumption that there's really anything we can do about events in the world other than the nation-state equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum.
Shooter in the last thread asserted that history is shaped by the aggressive use of force. He has it exactly backward. History has been shaped by the world uniting in it's effort to counter the aggressive use of force. There's no percentage in becoming a rogue state but it would appear that that's the way were heading.
There are enough antecedents in history to show that this is the direction we are heading and it's only our exceptionalism which blinds us to what's obvious to everyone else on the planet.
-
Let's hope the military prevents it
Several commenters on previous threads have suggested that our best hope for preventing war with Iran may lie with the military itself. Many of our military leaders are simply too smart to go along with such a disastrous mission.
Of course, the latest round of musical chairs at the highest levels of the military leaves open the possibility that those who won't support action in Iran are already leaving and being replaced by those who will support it.
I've mentioned this a couple of times before, but given the neocons' desire to attack Iran, why didn't we attack when the British sailors were seized? I was convinced the bombs would be dropping within hours of the event.
-
STRIKE!
STRIKE!
-
It sure looks that way...
Of course, the latest round of musical chairs at the highest levels of the military leaves open the possibility that those who won't support action in Iran are already leaving and being replaced by those who will support it.
I read somewhere that the new guys are not very pro-surge. The obvious follow-up is not asked, i.e., they must pro-war somewhere or the bloodthirsty neocons would not hire them. Iran seems to be the answer as it is on the top of all the neobots talking point list. Add to this that there seems to be more and more Navy folk and one sees air operations from all those carriers over there.
-
casus belli
Like Jim White mentioned, I too thought that the capture of the British sailors would trigger a strike against Iran. However, it seemed to me that the public didn't really care enough about it to generate the kind of public support (or acquiescence) that would logically precede a military stirke.
In fact, it seems that every few weeks I hear a new bit of information that could be the casus belli for a war. Besides the nuclear threat, we have heard that Iran is arming Iraqis against us, that they have captured British sailors, that they are imprisoning American-Iranian intellectuals, and now that they are arming the Taliban. So far, none of these bits of "intelligence" seem to have struck a chord with the American people.
We can debate whether this administration even cares about public support, but I think that the administration would want to establish some causal connection between an Iranian threat and a military strike.
-
History Lessons
Paul Dirks:
Shooter in the last thread asserted that history is shaped by the aggressive use of force. He has it exactly backward. History has been shaped by the world uniting in it's effort to counter the aggressive use of force.
Unfortunately, shooter is right (now shooter1.5457,849,653,240), but only partially. Force has shaped history, but not exclusively (e.g. Buddha, Jesus). As you noted, however, the aggressive use of force has usually redounded negatively upon the aggressor (e.g. WWI, WWII). I would say that there are eerie parallels between the current wars and the Franco-Prussian war, in that the "clear" favorite was willingly baited to attack the "victim" who wants to unify a nation.
Jim White:
I've mentioned this a couple of times before, but given the neocons' desire to attack Iran, why didn't we attack when the British sailors were seized? I was convinced the bombs would be dropping within hours of the event.
My guess is that Bushco felt that the British should have first crack at reaction, and were disappointed at the results. Next time, they may not be so willing to let our allies handle the situation.
-
RE: Urgency
Certainly our political discussions are virtually devoid of any sense of urgency over the prospect of a military confrontation with Iran. -- Glenn Greenwald
Why is that do you suppose?
Recently, your BFFs at Teh Politico stirred up a minifirestorm by accusing Harry Reid of calling Gen Peter Pace "incompetent" -- essentially blaming Reid for Pace's firing as Joint Chief's Chairman. Neat trick. Prior to this hullaballoo, it was assumed that Pace was drop kicked out the door because he wasn't gung-ho enough about the impending Iran attacks, and Gates/Cheney (or was it Gates/Bush?) wanted someone more bloodthirsty in that position.
The self-proclaimed liberal blogosphere has closed ranks to assert that Teh Politico is blowing smoke out its collective ass once again, that no such claim was made on a conference call between Harry Reid and Liberal Bloggers, yadda, yadda, except that in fact, as reported by Bob Geiger who was on the call, Reid did make such a statement, to wit:
"I guess the president, uh, he's gotten rid of Pace because he could not get him confirmed here in the Senate… Pace is also a yes-man for the president and I told him to his face, I laid it out to him last time he came to see me, I told him what an incompetent man I thought he was."
The story, aqui: http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/06/politico-fails-journalism-100.html
Which indicates that though Teh Politico may have spun the story in order to crank up the Right Wing Wurlitzer to attack Reid, which is always a good diversion in their eyes, the issue apparently has nothing to do with Iran, the previous CW on Pace's abrupt departure, but has everything to do with the appalling conditions in Iraq. Which Pace, Petraeus, et al, have abundant responsibility for, and Reid told Pace (at least) as much. To his face. Baldly. He's such a Bad Mean Old Man. And all.
So maybe, just maybe, this is why there is no "urgency" -- yet -- in the political discussion over an impending catastrophe in Iran. Even Holy Joe has been spanked over his intemperate warmongering the other day. "I wasn't warmongering, it wasn't me, not me!"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813037115&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Urgency will come -- if it comes -- when Cheney decides he can get away with attacking Iran without harm to himself. It really is that personal for him. If there is any justice in the world, the Iranians won't provide a casus belli and the Generals and Admirals and Gates and such will continually counsel against such an attack (barring direct Iranian attacks on US and/or Israel) and Harry Reid will continue to speak his mind in his awkward but charming way.
Of course the situation remains incredibly dangerous and potentially deadly. The entire Middle East is once again going to hell, disintegrating once more, and what actions the various players take in this cauldron of Chaos is anyone's guess. Any tiny misstep can provoke apocalyptic calamity. And for that, the Regime, it's Neo-Cons, and all the Generals and all the Admirals who have gone along with their crazy plots and plans and designs bear full culpability.