An E-Mail Post On Iran (I Love These)

I love e-mail posts. Normally when I write, I typically have to find something that I care about, know about, and am reasonably sure that I have something relatively unique or insightful to say. This in and of itself can prove to be a rather tiresome experience for various reasons. The beauty of these e-mail posts is that I don’t have to sit around waiting for my muse to knock me upside the head, but instead I’m already given the subject and I get to just go. For this reason, I encourage anyone to e-mail me at mr.m.lofc@gmail.com with questions or topics, and I’ll field them the best that I can in lieu of doing real work.

This particular outing into e-mail comes from none other than Cernig of Newshog. C and I have been both friends and colleagues for over a year now, and C is particularly astute in foreign affairs, which is natural because on top of being intelligent and methodical, he’s also a Scottish ex-pat, giving him a perspective that most Americans lack.

He excels in foreign affairs, I dabble in horse race politics. It’s interesting because while we disagree on several subjects, we do tend to write about different things, and so everything works out. Just this morning I get an e-mail from C about Iran. Not so much an e-mail as a call for lefty bloggers to start writing about the Iran situation, but I ceded that it’s just not my arena.

Still, C and I are friends, and so I started expressing some musings about the situation, and after about 40 minutes or so, I realized I had another post on my hands. Now before you get to the e-mail, I invite you to go check out the post that C did on Iran that sparked the e-mail conversation. I found it to be some pretty good readin’. When you finish with that, I invite you to peruse my layman’s thoughts on the topic. It is by no means meant to be definitive, and in fact I hope to entertain as insightful a discussion on this post as we had on my previous post below. Enjoy.

Well, C, you know why I don’t blog on this stuff, it’s just not my forte. I leave it to those who are much more apt and able to do so… such as yourself.

But the politics behind going to war in Iran, as do all things that influence American politics, interests me. And I think the biggest question to ask is can he be as successful in selling this war as he was the first?

Understand that Bush continues to live a borrowed existence. Time and time again he has been politically resurrected like some political parody of Lazarus, and I keep waiting for the big picture to sink in. I keep waiting for people to finally ask the question, not who will keep us safe from Bin Laden, but instead why is he still alive? I keep waiting for people to finally ask the question, okay, all these ethics scandals from the GOP seem to be localized, or to fall away, but why are there just so damn many of them?

It seems that on every individual issue, the President is granted some mystical reserve of credibility, and then he eventually depletes it, and then out of nowhere, it is refilled. No wonder the guy doesn’t worry about the environment, it has nothing to do with this being the end of days, he just thinks that everything will just, replenish itself.

But like the housing market, despite how indefinite something appears to be, realists understand that all things, good or bad, must eventually come to an end. And so when we look at the Presidents ability to sell the war, this is one of the things that I look to. Can Bush rightfully achieve the credibility to wage a second war? Isn’t that unprecedented? For one president to wage two seperate wars.

Then there are the logistics of the matter. Iraq was a much smaller nation, and were already putting a strain on the military, waging a war there, does this make Iran even feasible? Can the administration be that brazen to dismiss the resources at hand. Uh, see above.

But there are other things that bother me. One being that one of the largest arguments I heard from liberals, particular during the 04 election cycle, was that why go to war in Iraq when Iran and Korea were much bigger threats? Hmmm… Just something to think about, but that may turn into an obstacle for the anti Iran war crowd in the future.

But with the recurrence of OBL in the news yesterday, and with all the online discussions I’ve had over the past 24, I’ve noticed one theme that continuously keeps popping up at least from me. Diplomacy. Our administration lacks it. Completely. The problem with cronyism is that it is an exact antithesis of diplomacy. This is simply because cronyism requires you to rub elbows with people who are similar to you, and easy for you to get along with, whereas diplomacy requires you to put aside personal differences and dislikes to work with people you don’t like.

Does this administration even have the capacity for diplomacy? I don’t think so. Not the kind of hard diplomacy required to promote peace. And when you don’t have that, the only answer you can have is war, and that, unfortunately is where we are. It is not the inevitable result, but it is the only result that this administration is capable of producing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook