Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The Next War

With the 'Mission Accomplished' anniversary come and gone, perhaps it's time again to turn our attention back to the war with Iran that administration is not planning. Many feel that we are on the brink of an inevitable conflict.

That's a legitimate issue for debate.

The Iranian leaders, of course, are not exactly making diplomacy easy. They're enjoying the attention.

(And ol' Drudgey is quite happy to have another chance for yellow journalism fearmongering)

But the other end of this debate is the political reasons why a conflict might be embraced by our current leadership. We've certainly all seen this script before, only four short years ago. Josh Marshall looks at how this debate- sure to heat up as the Fall approaches- will influence the midterm elections-
With respect to what's coming on Iran, what is in order is a little honesty, just as was the case with the Social Security debate a year ago. The only crisis with Iran is the crisis with the president's public approval ratings. Period. End of story. The Iranians are years, probably as long as a decade away, and possibly even longer from creating even a limited yield nuclear weapon. Ergo, the only reason to ramp up a confrontation now is to help the president's poll numbers.

This is a powerful message because it is an accurate message. We have many challenges overseas today. Chief among them, as one of the Democrats' senate candidates puts it, is "refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened." The period of peril the country is entering into isn't tied to an Iranian bomb. It turns on how far a desperate president will go to avoid losing control of Congress.

Go to his heart. Go to his weaknesses. Though the realization of the fact is something of a lagging indicator, the man is a laughing stock, whose lies and failures are all catching up with him.

To the president the Democrats should be saying, Double or Nothing is Not a Foreign Policy.

What he said.

Matthew Yglesias also urges Democrats to be prepared-
Politicians in the mix, meanwhile, need to disabuse themselves of any illusions about the administration acting in good faith. It's clear that a certain faction on the right is determined to have a war. It's not clear whether that faction will ultimately drive policy, but it is clear that if there is a war the war will be a result of the hawks' ascendancy. At the same time, there's a school of thought in the GOP that thinks a war will be politically beneficial. Put it together and what you most certainly don't have are a group of people who are merely keeping all options "on the table" as they try to play a game of patient diplomacy.

The war party needs to be attacked -- vociferously -- in part by pointing to the sort of crassness on display in the Time article, in part with reference to the administration's now-legendary incompetence, but in part with the deeper point that this is simply a wildly bad idea.

Meanwhile, the left-of-center expert types are going to need to step up and show some leadership as well. So far, the silence has been a bit deafening.

It has been defeaning.

Bottom line- I don't want more people to die because of the President's misguided ideology, hero complex, and (ultimately) incompetence. I don't want us sitting around in three years debating what wrong in Iran and we what can do to resolve the growing quagmire. I don't want to see another foreign entanglement left to the next set of U.S. leaders after the Bush crew leaves office. I don't want to see worldwide terrorism increase further in the face of U.S. agression. I don't want Iran to gain nuclear weapons and play a game of chicken in the Middle East, but I also don't want to see us play into their hands. I don't want to see the United States drop nukes on a country with a disgruntled populace simply to prevents its leader from getting nukes themselves.

I don't want war if it can, by any means, be avoided. Problem is that 'avoid' is not in this President's dictionary.

[PS- Was Valerie Plame working on Iran intel before she was outed? That appears to be the case.]

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home