Sneak Attack

The boss told me I'd get paid weakly
and that's exactly how I'm paid
--Another Day, Another Dollar,
Porter Wagoner
________________________

What is the furor over Iran's reported attempts to build a nuclear weapon and calls to preemptively strike Iran's production facilities?

Many are with the New York Post which declares with alacrity, "a short, concentrated [U.S] arial and naval bombardment" would make short-order of the situation. Some believe the preemptive strike should be farmed out to Israel (in the spirit of off-shoring, which has worked so very well for us in the economic sphere.) The Iranian weapons are being presented as terrorist nuclear weapons when there is no proof backing up the allegation.

Ranger's Question of the Day: How does a U.S. or allied preemptive strike differ from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? That attack was opportunistic and elective, but at least Japan declared war, something that the U.S. has relegated to the quaint file. Can the U.S. in good faith lay wreaths at the USS Arizona monument while executing non-declared preemptive wars?

In response to the U.S. allegation, Iran's President Ahmadinejad recently stated that the U.S. possesses 20,000 high-yield nuclear weapons, leading to the question, would anyone in Iran be foolish enough to employ a nuclear weapon for any offensive purpose?

It is difficult to understand the U.S. concern in that theatre. The U.S. is the wild card causing disruption and destabilization, and even our own purported allies have stated they would ally with others, given the opportunity. Yet we are willing to create another major state type war over what? Isn't there enough disruption here in The Homeland ™ to garner our attention? (The thought of Cain, Bachmann or Romney running our nation should be cause enough for massive alarm.)

Where is the America that used to consider the welfare of Americans as Job 1? A war with Iran would be as disastrous and pointless as have been our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya. What "make benefit" has been gained by any of it, aside from the sordid improved job opportunities for physical therapists, prosthetic manufacturers, and any of the other profiteers of war?

How often will the U.S. ignore concepts like "wars of aggression", instead executing discretionary preemptive wars sold as cakewalks, which are anything but.

Don't Go There

--Ollie Johansson, Sweden

It’s naïve for us to think that
we can grow our nuclear stockpiles,
the Russians continue to grow
their nuclear stockpiles,
and our allies grow their nuclear stockpiles,
and that in that environment we’re
going to be able to pressure countries
like Iran and North Korea
not to pursue nuclear weapons themselves
--President Obama

___________

The above quote sounds good, but it doesn't jibe with the words from the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who said Tuesday a military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons capability remains on the table. Flush with victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is easy to see why our leaders might feel it is time to translate those successes into another elective war.

However, Mullen diluted the statement somewhat by saying he would "worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck." He said, "It is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, shape or form (Joint Chiefs Chairman: Strike on Iran Remains Option)." We think the way you do that is to not go there in any way, shape or form.

Though the U.S. has a new F Troop Commander, we are still getting the same old rhetoric about elective attack options on Iran. Obama is a funambulist, who says do as I say, not as I do. But when you are the President, you cannot afford that schism in thought. It is or it isn't.

Facing such a possibility, it is obvious why Iran is so keen on acquiring nuclear weapons. Factor in Joe Biden, who recently gave Israel the green light to bomb Iran, and we must ask: Is it that our leaders lose their grasp on reality after assuming office, or was the deficit always there?

Irresponsible rhetoric like "military options are on the table" are not reality-based. More helpful would be an announcement that we will destroy half of our weapons stockpile. Then the U.S. could operate from a position of moral leadership on the topic. Condemning any nation for wanting nuclear weapons is hypocritical while standing on the world's largest inventory of useless nukes.

What is America about? Why is Iran our unilateral responsibility. Same-same North Korea.

Meddlesome

Ranger Jim's definition of COIN:
Where cultures meet over rifle sights.
______________

The headlines tell the sorry tale, "US accuses Iran and Syria of trying to destabilize Iraq."

Hmmm. . .and what is it the U.S. is doing in Iraq? Is it not interference and destabilization on a stellar scale? Matters not that the U.S. has packaged it as a humanitarian effort. As Enid Strict, The Church Lady, might say -- how convenient!

First we invade Iraq in a war of aggression, totally destroying its infrastructure, then occupy it. From this mess we are calling democracy in action the U.S. has the temerity to cast aspersions on Iran.

It is illogical and insane for the U.S. to contemplate a military response to Iran when it is obvious the U.S. is strained maintaining its present two war fronts. Yet Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, says he could call up his reserves and the U.S. could open a third front (CIA Director says Iran wants to kill Americans in Iraq.) And what would that leave to protect the U.S. from an unforseen threat?

An attack upon Iran would be as rational an act as that of a suicide bomber. The average U.S. citizen will not benefit in any manner from an attack on Iran, other than gaining another worrisome distraction to divert their attention from the skyrocketing cost of milk and oil.

Let us hope Congress will clip George Bush and Co.'s wings this time around.