here we go again
The drumbeat is picking up. De facto President Bush gave his bellicose speech last week again making the case for regime change in Iran. And in Glenn Greenwald's words,
"More disturbingly still, we have the same exact cast of neoconservative warmongers who brought us the invasion of Iraq, now chirping away ever more loudly, performing their tough guy war dances while courageously beating their little chests and urging on new wars. So, here we go again. The Republicans want another war in the Middle East, not just with Iran but with Syria too."
I'm sure this will go swimmingly. I mean, Iran only has 3 times as many people as Iraq, so it would only be 3 times harder to pacify. Iran's terrain is tougher, Iran's leadership ihas more legitimacy than Iraq, we can expect essentially ZERO international support there (as opposed to significant support in Afghanistan, and at least major British support in Iraq at first). Syria is a lot weaker than Iran, but I want to try whatever the neocons are smoking to believe that a new Syrian regime would be any less hostile to Israel than Assad's - which as a regime comprised of Alawites that are seen as heretics by most Muslims, is at least opposed to fundamental Sunniism.
How Bush and his neo-con chorus of lunacy can possibly believe that an attack on Iran would help stabilize the Middle East is completely beyond me. I guess I just don't have enough faith in untested and untestable propositions based purely on grotesque misconceptions of the realities on the ground to make the Bush/Cheney/neocon leap to war.
I don't share their faith, but we will all share in the consequences. Recently, some guy at Huffington Post suggested that the generals at the Pentagon remove Bush as commander in chief (but NOT as president, he painstakingly and somewhat disingeneously insisted) - an absurd proposition, but it is a bit chilling that people are thinking that a semi-putsch may be preferable to allowing Bush/Cheney to continue to exercise their (grossly exaggerated but unchallenged by Congress) control over our armed forces. Military misadventures are a classic way to damage, sometimes fatally, a regime and indeed an entire political system (see, Iraq vs Iran; Argentine vs Britain; World War I, and other examples). We are already engaged in one misadventure in Iraq. Can our republic stand another?
"More disturbingly still, we have the same exact cast of neoconservative warmongers who brought us the invasion of Iraq, now chirping away ever more loudly, performing their tough guy war dances while courageously beating their little chests and urging on new wars. So, here we go again. The Republicans want another war in the Middle East, not just with Iran but with Syria too."
I'm sure this will go swimmingly. I mean, Iran only has 3 times as many people as Iraq, so it would only be 3 times harder to pacify. Iran's terrain is tougher, Iran's leadership ihas more legitimacy than Iraq, we can expect essentially ZERO international support there (as opposed to significant support in Afghanistan, and at least major British support in Iraq at first). Syria is a lot weaker than Iran, but I want to try whatever the neocons are smoking to believe that a new Syrian regime would be any less hostile to Israel than Assad's - which as a regime comprised of Alawites that are seen as heretics by most Muslims, is at least opposed to fundamental Sunniism.
How Bush and his neo-con chorus of lunacy can possibly believe that an attack on Iran would help stabilize the Middle East is completely beyond me. I guess I just don't have enough faith in untested and untestable propositions based purely on grotesque misconceptions of the realities on the ground to make the Bush/Cheney/neocon leap to war.
I don't share their faith, but we will all share in the consequences. Recently, some guy at Huffington Post suggested that the generals at the Pentagon remove Bush as commander in chief (but NOT as president, he painstakingly and somewhat disingeneously insisted) - an absurd proposition, but it is a bit chilling that people are thinking that a semi-putsch may be preferable to allowing Bush/Cheney to continue to exercise their (grossly exaggerated but unchallenged by Congress) control over our armed forces. Military misadventures are a classic way to damage, sometimes fatally, a regime and indeed an entire political system (see, Iraq vs Iran; Argentine vs Britain; World War I, and other examples). We are already engaged in one misadventure in Iraq. Can our republic stand another?
Labels: iran
posted by Don Q Blogger at 8:21 PM
1 Comments:
Can our republic stand another?
No - we can't even stand this one. Not only the heavy drain on money and resources, but we're losing good soldiers and our military is stretched beyond it's means.
And we've lost so much international "face" for lack of a better word. It'll take years to rebuild - if at all possible - the international court again.
Another armed conflict? The only reason we engage in the ones we have now is because our country is on the other side of the world. We'd never do this to our border countries.
Post a Comment
<< Home