Old 97's Blogging
(Title inserted at roommate's suggestion, who noted that listening to "Alive and Wired" makes all the problems in the world seem more manageable)
MORE BRILLIANT ANALYSIS from the National Review Online:
THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING [by Cliff May] In Iraq? Maybe. In Europe?Almost certainly.
Now I know being a math expert isn't required for a political blogging gig ('cause Allah knows I'd be disqualified if it were), but let's review the numbers quickly:
1- Number of terrorist attacks in Europe in 2005 (the bombings in London.)
34,131- Number of insurgent attacks in Iraq in 2005. About 8,000 more than the 26,496 attacks the year before.
But clearly, we can see that Europe is on the verge of falling into the hands of radical Islamists while Iraq makes its historic shift to a peaceful, secular and democratic country. I've really got to stop reading right-wing blogs...
DESPITE ALL THE APOCALYPTIC chatter in the pundit and blogger class, both on the left and the right, we are not headed to war with Iran. I'm getting pretty fed up with it. It's not gonna happen, and you all know it. Everyone just chill out.
Problem is, I think people on both sides just like chattering about it a lot. For liberals, "proving" that Bush is about to attack Iran backs up their worldview that Bush is crazy (as if we needed more evidence). For conservatives, arguing that we should gear up for war with Iran backs up their, well, crazy worldview. For both sides, just discussing the topic generates welcome attention. But it seems pretty clear that Bush has neither the capability nor the will to pull off an attack, which is good because the situation surely does not warrant one.
As liberal pundits and bloggers struggle to outdo one another to find the smoking gun that Bush is about to attack Iran (remember, for chrissakes, that Seymour Hersh is not God and has been wrong before), the arguments get increasingly sillier. Consider this argument today from Hooman Majd on the Huffington Post: he writes that since Bush "has formulated his foreign policy (and he hopes his legacy) largely in terms of bringing American-style democracy to the Middle East, it is difficult to imagine President Bush willing to leave office with a far more powerful and stable Islamic Republic."
Puh-leeze. To support such an argument, you have to believe in two of the most ridiculous myths about why Bush invaded Iraq. First, no matter what Bush says, he didn't do it for democracy, so don't give him the courtesy of repeating his lie as fact. You're working for the Huffington Post, not CNN, ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. Second, no matter what Maureen Dowd says, he didn't do it as an egotistical thing, some sort of macho showdown with Saddam. So needless to say, he won't invade Iran for democracy or to safegaurd his ego, either.
ON MONDAY, I apparently missed a event in Philadelphia honoring right-wing Middle East historian Bernard Lewis, with speeches delivered by Dick Cheney and Joe Biden. In other news, I did not rip out my right eye with a spoon yesterday.
WHEN YOU KEEP rattlesnakes in your room, sometimes they keep your enemies out. Sometimes, if you're not careful, they bite you.
"Romney’s candidacy may face an unfair religious test."
posted by Joe at 4:01 PM
5 Comments:
Gee, I would imagine that Novak would be against a Mormon running for president, too, since his candidacy is clearly a tool of this country's war on traditional Christianity.
Joe, I do believe we are heading towards a battle with Iran that could end up with airstrikes. Kucinich asked Bolton if we already had troops in Iran as reported by intelligence, and Bolton has refused to answer. What you are saying is that people like me know darned good and well, for a fact,that this administratin will not start war with Iran but speculate that it is a likely scenario out of paranoia or idealizing Seymour Hersh. While I do not have proof or know for a fact that we are likely to srike Iran, you haven't proven that we aren't. This administration's past actions are being repeated and there is no reason to trust them, so why do you know we are not going to war with Iran?
Indeed, there is no reason to trust the administration.
While I obviously can't prove that war is not on the way, there are numerous factors that cause me to think that the likelihood of limited action like airstrikes is low, and likelihood of all-out is next to zero:
1) There has been no large-scale PR campaign like there was with Iraq to sell a conflict. From late to 2001 all the way up to the invasion in March 2003, Bushies were everywhere lying and telling people that we had to go to war. War talk dominated the news and public discourse. We don't see that today, and without such a campaign of fear-mongering, they won't be able to go to war.
While we used to hear fierce statements about impending war, no we see the US making meager efforts to work through the UN and get some kind of sanctions enforced. Essentially, we've taken the position on Iran that the French and Germans took on Iraq.
2) An all-out invasion can basically be ruled out. We simply don't have the troops to pull it off.
3) That leaves the possibility of airstrikes, which Bush will likely not do for a number of reasons. For one, it is unlikely we could destroy all of their capabilities, so nations like Israel would be vulnerable to a response. (On this note, I've heard the IDF is against a conflict for this reason).
There would also be other ways of Iranian retaliation, most notably in Iraq. If we attacked Iran, the Shiites in Iraq, backed by all of Iran's might, would completely rise up. This would make the situation 100% untenable for the US in Iraq, causing the base of the insurgency to spread from 20% of the population to 80%. In short, we'd basically be driven out of Iraq entirely, probably after seeing hundreds of troops die each day. So attacking Iran would make it impossible for us to have any stake in Iraq, something Bush absolutely does not want.
Think of what Bush wants most in his MidEast policy: oil.
An airstrike on Iran would not only cause oil prices to soar over $100 a barrel, it would also severely damage America's efforts to control the Iraqi oil market.
This, I believe, is why the Bushies aren't gunning for war. They remain a bit ominous in their rhetoric (as in the Bolton thing you reference and the "all options on the table" line), but that's pretty typical.
Just to add to that quickly, one quick disclaimer:
I admit that I am eternally an optimist, someone who assumes that the best will usually come out of most situations, and prone to seeing pessism as useless. My optimism is reinforced daily as I peruse the blogosphere and see left-wing sites go apeshit over the latest "crisis" and declare on a daily basis that the world will soon end. Things are bad now under Bush, but I think we need some perspective.
This can lead to some naivete on my part, seen by the fact that I didn't think Bush would actually be dumb enough to invade Iraq either. So I'll admit that, sadly, I've been wrong before on predicting these matters.
Joe, Many other people I trust and admire believe that war with Iran is not going to happen for the reasons you stated and I hope and pray you are all correct. Am I paranoid? Well, it's not paranoia when someone really is following you. Yes, I believe this neo-con cabal is capable of the most foolish and deadly of actions and think they are capable of making decisions that defy all of the logic you and others state. With this gang of theives and killers, our voices are not heard, but I still believe in war protests so they see their opposition wherever they turn. So there is a little optimism, I guess. My name calling a finger pointing is the type of thing Alinsky would find counter-productive, but my disgust has risen beyond the point of no return. Knowing that Bush will not be President in 2008 is my only consolation!
Post a Comment
<< Home