02 September, 2007

The Next War

UPDATE: Everybody should be keeping up with the Informed Comment Global Affairs Blog. There's more on this each day.

A U.S. attack on Iran is starting to sound like a matter of when, not if.

Average people I talk to here do not believe the Bush administration would attack and/or invade Iran for a variety of reasons: the U.S. military is already spread too thin; the growing public unease about the war in Iraq; lack of public support for a third war; it's just too crazy an idea, even for these loons...
I usually nod and acknowledge the logic of those arguments, which would certainly give better leaders pause. However, I do not believe this administration acts on logic. I think they have proven that time and again.

While the idea of an attack on Iran has been brought up before, the tone seems to be changing from the theoretical to the inevitable. Recent weeks have brought some disturbing writings concerning a U.S. strike on Iran. These are not the rantings of wild-eyed, tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. Read Juan Cole, Barnett Rubin, McClatchy, The New Yorker ("Test Marketing"), Scott Horton of Harper's, Glenn Greenwald of Salon, and Chris Floyd for yourself. Maccabee on Daily Kos has an interesting entry in his diary, as well.

The Raw Story has a piece about a report issued by Dr. Dan Plesch, the Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies' Center for International Studies and Diplomacy, and Martin Butcher, an international security politics consultant, that analyzes the potential for a U.S. war with Iran and how it might unfold. You can download the actual report from a link in the story.

The administration, neocons, and their supporters are ratcheting up their rhetoric and it is sounding somewhat familiar. This follows Senate passage of the Lieberman amendment to the defense spending bill and revelation of U.S. plans to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

As Jon Stewart says, "cue the fear music"...

Bill O'Rielley was again claiming on his show this week that what war critics really want the U.S. to lose in Iraq. The "dissent is treason" thing is so tired, absurd, offensive. At this point, I am not even sure what the U.S. losing means in practical terms. What to we call the situation now? Bill, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to have a stable, safe, functioning Iraq where people can return home to live in peace. I just don't see that happening. And I wouldn't believe the people running my government telling me they had to fight the school bully because he was taking milk money from the other kids if I saw it with my own eyes.

I was in Morocco in 2004 and the question friends kept asking was "why are the people in your country not out in the streets (about the Iraq war)?" That was before many of the big reveals of lies and manipulations. I didn't have many good responses for that question then. I don't feel I do now, either. I just hope it's not too late to stop the next war.


No comments: