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.

"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?

Wolves at the Door?

Every heart beats true
'neath the Red, White and Blue,
Where there's never a boast or brag
--Grand Old Flag, George M. Cohan
____________

Here is a recent letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal by M.A. Mohammadi, Press Counselor for the Mission of Iran to The U.N. Food for thought.

Iran a Danger? Surely Not

In response to your April 27 editorial ''Missile Defense Mischief:

Iran poses no danger to Europe or any other continent or country, including the United States, that warrants a U.S. plan to install an anti-missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The U.S. government's justification, that this is meant to protect Europe from missiles fired by Iran, is ludicrous.

Europe is Iran's main trading partner. Iran has not attacked any of its neighbors, let alone out-of-area countries, during the past 250 years and its military capabilities are purely defensive, given the recent history of Iraq's invasion of Iran, tacitly backed by certain Western governments, during the 1980s.

The U.S. must look for another scapegoat to perpetuate its post-Cold War sway over Europe.

Fortunately, the rest of the world is keenly aware of how U.S.'s hegemonic intentions are cloaked by manufacturing threats. Instead of continuing the old power paradigm, the U.S. must shift to a post-hegemonic course of action in order to restore its global credibility.