Because Some People STILL Haven’t Figured Out It’s Not A Good Idea!

I’m not going to mince words or try and get into an overly long explanation on this single point. Nope, I’m gonna be pretty clear. WE GOT NO DAMN BUSINESS EVEN TALKING ABOUT BOMBING IRAN!

*pant-pant-pant*

Okay, Glenn Greenwald’s post today reinforces this point as he takes a look at a British perspective on the outside looking in at America. While in the aftermath of Tony Blair’s time as Prime Minister, the Britons are looking back trying to figure out how they got themselves into the mess that is named Iraq, while looking across the pond, they are instead looking at people desperately trying to keep their administration from repeating that mistake with Iran.

What people are talking about in America is not whether the invasion of Iraq was legally or morally justified but why it went so disastrously wrong and whether the same blundering fanatics will launch another catastrophic military adventure, most likely a bombing campaign against Iran, to distract attention from failure in Iraq. After all, the neoconservative ideologues who still run the Bush Administration have nothing left to lose politically — and in their fevered imaginations they still think they could inflict military defeat on the “Islamofascists” in what they now see as an even greater historical confrontation than the Cold War.

While Mr Brown and the British media are still fretting about who said what to whom about WMD intelligence, the talk in American policy circles is about an article, The Case for Bombing Iran, published two weeks ago in Commentary and The Wall Street Journal and cited approvingly to anyone who cares to listen by officials close to Dick Cheney. Its author, Norman Podhoretz, is an intellectual mentor to the people who took America into Iraq. His self-explanatory message is that Iran today is more dangerous than Hitler’s Germany, since it could soon have nuclear weapons — and that Israel’s very existence is menaced now as never before.

He then goes on to dissect, rather adeptly I might add, the fervor coming from the neoconservatives within the administration to make a case for bombing Iran.

Frankly, I just don’t get it. If anything, one would think that trying to make the case for warring with Iran would be a bad thing because it’s hard to do without reminding people just how badly the administration screwed up with Iraq; one of the big arguments against attacking Iran being how stretched and overtasked our military already is as a result of Quagmiraq.

And we don’t have definitive evidence that the country poses an addressable threat to national security. Now let’s not quibble, Iran isn’t our friend, and if they call us such, we should probably be looking for the knife in our back. I trust Iran as far as I can throw it which, given the fact that it’s an entire country, is not very far at all.

But just because we neither trust or like a country doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to make war, so again, I ask, why?

Because they might be developing nukes? Couple problems with this, one being do we know for sure. Second, it’s kinda hard to tell someone that they can’t have nukes when we got a whole mess of ’em sitting on the shelf just waiting to be dusted off and sent to go play. Perhaps, just perhaps, if we were good stewarts of the old World’s Police meme, and had some sort of moral highground, maybe just maybe you could pull that bit of hypocracy off, but, well, El Presidente has worked pretty hard at making sure that we lost that. But I digress.

Is it because these guys actually did read 1984 and thought, ‘Hey! That’s how we keep power?’ I hope not because if we’ve learned anything during the 2006 election, and recent approval polls, happily we are not Orwellian sheep that can be made docile by prolonged war. No, in fact, recent disapproval in congress wasn’t because they were too liberal, but because they weren’t liberal enough, and swaths of the population felt they didn’t do ENOUGH to put an end to the war.

The fact is, prolonged war, particularly prolonged mismanaged wars such as that of Iraq don’t make people follow the leader and get all nationalistic, it pisses them off and results in a bitterly divided public. It’s the short successful ones that get people waving flags in droves. Back in 2004 when Bush won reelection, the Iraq war still had some of that shiny new car smell on it, but now as we get ready to pick a new leader, the war smells like something else entirely, and people are ready for a changing of the guard.

So even that diabolical purpose doesn’t stand up. So why the hell are we even talking about this? The only thing I can imagine is that the neoconservative view is warped to the point where the entire world is locked in this eternal struggle of good versus evil where the only option we have available to us is to weild a mighty sword and beat back the demons into submission with God on our side (Our God, the good one. Not their God who is the epitome of evil in the world).

As Bush said, “you’re either with us or against us.”

It makes a helluva fairy tale, and if these guys just abandoned governance and took up writing sci-fi/fantasy, they would be wildly successful, it’s just that it doesn’t work well with reality.

Leave a Reply

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

Connect with Facebook