The Next War
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
--Imagine, John Lennon
Instead of a coalition of the willing,
what we really have is a coalition of contractors!
--Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va)
________
The buildup to a military confrontation with Iran is transparent, yet Ranger wonders why that must be. A cynic might say oil, but GWB's messianic fervor also suggests a forced showdown in the Holy Land emanating from his Revelation-based orthodoxy. The True Believer will not be dissuaded from his mission.
Wesley Clark wrote in the Washington Post last month about this projected war. But if Clark believed his own rhetoric, this next war could be avoided via dialog with our political adversaries.
Wesley Clark wrote in the Washington Post last month about this projected war. But if Clark believed his own rhetoric, this next war could be avoided via dialog with our political adversaries.
"How tragic it is to see old men who are unwilling to talk to potential adversaries but seem so ready to dispatch young people to fight and die."
"War is the last, last, last resort. It always brings tragedy and rarely brings glory. Take it from a general who won: The best war is the one that doesn't have to be fought, and the best military is the one capable and versatile enough to deter the next war in the first place" (The Next War).
If we were serious about wanting to mentor the world into democracy, we would first show ourselves as members in good standing of that world. We are not talking Neville Chamberlain appeasement. Iran is not seeking to co-opt another nation. Instead, we appear brutish and buffoonish, in equal measure. Columbia invites Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak, only to have the president of that institution preemptively berate him.
Are you in or are you out? If the man is too onerous, then make a stand via non-invitation. But do not waffle, and do not play cat-and-mouse. That is not dignified behavior, especially toward a head of state.
It is not a realistic policy to isolate nations from the world body politic. Iran needs to be politically engaged rather than isolated. Isolation breeds belligerence. Mr. Clark would be wise to admit that U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have done more to destabilize the region than the Iran regime has. Iran is not an aggressor-state; however, the U.S. is.
It would be wise for U.S. policy-makers to realize and accept the fact that Iran has legitimate military concerns for her own security and military safety. The U.S. sits on Iranian borders and sponsors Kurdish terrorist raids and Special Forces incursions into Iranian sovereign territory.
In addition, the U.S. embraces preemptive invasions and regime change. Given this scenario, it seems logical that Iran would want nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. The U.S. has an offensive nuclear weapons policy, yet attacks Tehran for wanting tactical defensive weapons. This is hypocritical, but par for U.S. policy.
We seem to be backsliding into a dangerous xenophobia -- a neo-dark age, shepherded in by the hawk neo-cons. An emergent tribalism which seems all but built in to our genetics. The U.S. opposes WMD for others, yet has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. To the people on the other side of the gate, this fact probably doesn't seem fair or safe.
Does this behavior seem like sanity to you?
Labels: iran war, revelation theology, wesley clark
posted by rangeragainstwar at 11:04 PM
9 Comments:
"Dark Ages America" is SUCH a depressing book title. What is more depressing is that I fear it is much more than just a book title.
ranger, it is so far from sanity that if i wasn't watching it slide into place i would not believe it. i have been pointing out to folks since iran started publicly owning up to its nuke program that they would be fools not to do most of the things that they are doing. they not only have heavily armed americans to their east and west they have armed american bombers and fighters to their north up in the "stans" and they have three, count 'em three carrier battle groups in the water to the south. in miltary tactical terms that's called "surrounded" and tells any responsible commander that it is either time for the most extreme measures possible or time for capitulation to the best mercies of the foe.
as far as the "meddling" in the iraq arguemnt goes, it is ludicris on its face. if there was foreign government from half a world away with an armed presence in mexico causing military chaos from guerillas and refugees with a present danger of turning violent in el paso and san diego would the u.s. be justified in a little "meddling?"
but the biggest response i have to those who are making the case for invasion or any other attack on iran to forestall their becoming a nuclear power i simply say "so what?" we dealt with a world where the soviets, and the chinese had nukes loaded and armed and pointing at us for a long, long time. if iran develops nuclear weapons capability the solution is simple. you invite them to the white house or to helsinki or stockholm and over dinner you tell the iranian representatives "welcome to the nuclear community. there is only one rule in this club to remember, if you ever use one, for any reason, we. will. incincerate. you. that's all. have fun with your new toys."
given a choice between a nuclear iran and any of the alternatives presented by the bushies, or even contemplating the prospect of these people who have proven to be among the most incompetent in the history of governments being the ones to implement the strategy of more rational minds.
i choose a nuclear capable iran.
it really is that simple for me.
labrys,
Many have said the following in one form or another:
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men" Martin Luther King, Jr.
All the Blackberries in the world won't civilize you, nor teach you compassion.
MB,
As usual, you've articulated the crux of situation. Our actions are ludicrous; the correct response to the rabble-rousers is, "So what"; the correct thing to tell Iran is the rules of the game.
Jim will be pleased to see your comment.
MB,
Yes, even Rangers and SEALS understand the situation, so what's the problem here.
Your interpretation is most welcome. What's even worse is that Laura Bush snubs Iran, and that's worse than being nuked. We know about the Bush women.
WMD's, spreading democracy, fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, it's Iraq's fault, it's Iran's fault, Iran, Iran, Iran.....
Here we go again!
trip wire,
"And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Saddam..."
Yes, the WMDs are somewhere, and intrepid Americans are on the move to find them.
Hint: look in the backyard.
As an elder member of the class that actually goes and does the work of fighting foreign devils, I think it's time we get rational about where we hunt for weapons of mass destruction. If the actual presence of nukes, bugs and gas isn't all that critical—which seems to be the case—I say we should focus on some better locales.
I vote for Mexico and Venezuela. The military leadership should like this, what with the obvious logistical benefits of doing shorter-haul invasions in the same time zones. The troops would love it. The weather is better and each country has nice beaches and cold beer everywhere. Plus there are tons of good-looking women who don't cover themselves all up with strange garments.
Oh, and each country has oil. What's not to like?
publius,
I appreciate your innovative thinking, but your ideas are too easy. If we went on those crusades you mention, it would look like we're after oil. And being the pornographer, beer-swillin' nation we are, the temptations would prove too great.
Privation is the name of the game. A cover story is necessary. Remember, we didn't send our boys over to Iraq to chat up the local gals. They are there on a mission, to. . . do something.
Post a Comment
<< Home