Tuesday, September 26, 2006


Wesley Clark: Bush, Cheney Intend To Attack Iran

Coming in hard on the heels of Dave Lindorff's exposé over at The Nation (and which was blogged here at MR a few days ago), we find out that no less a personage than General Wesley Clark is saying that Bush and Cheney want to attack Iran (emphases mine):

About Iran: General Wesley Clark said that Bush is painting himself into a corner on Iran. The General feels that the only chance to stop a strike on Iran is the election of a Democratic Congress in November, assuming BushCo does not manage to start dropping the bombs before the election. The only good news about Iran is that Clark feels there are clear divisions in the Administration, with Rice showing some misgivings about striking, and CheneyCo wanting war with Iran ASAP. The bad news is that with RiceCo wavering, and CheneyCo chomping at the bit, a strike is simply a matter of "when, not if." One of the saddest parts about that portion of General Clark's discussion is that we know diplomacy can make a difference.  Clark related stories about Yugoslavia, when we sat down with some very bad people and averted a war. Later, when Milosevic pursued ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and diplomacy was not working, we used appropriate force to cause Milosevic to surrender. The cost in U.S. lives: ZERO.  And we worked with our allies effectively to achieve successful results. Clark does not claim that everything was perfect in Yugoslavia, or that diplomacy with Iran is guaranteed to work. But he made it clear that Democrats have a much better track record of dealing with complex foreign policy in modern times. Clark feels the best way to deal with Iran is to engage, not to isolate. He thinks a diplomatic campaign with democratic ideas, Iranian ex-pats, and "blue jeans" is more likely to have a positive impact than a strafing run with bunker-busters. We have to win back Congress to have a chance at success. Clark thinks a strike on Iran will be a two week bombing, typical of the start to any modern conflict, targeting power, command and control, mobility, etc. Since our ground forces are stretched too thin to invade, there will probably be some special forces teams sent in, but not much else on the ground. Clark does not think BushCo has the guts or political clout to start the draft at this time. Interestingly, Clark is not anti-draft. He feels there is a time and place for the draft, and when the American public is in agreement about that time and place, America will use the draft again. But Iran will not be that time and place.

And in case you haven't been following along and wonder why attacking Iran is such a bad idea, here's Zbigniew Brezinski to explain things. (Hint: Iran's run by Shiite mullahs, who are very friendly with the Shiite mullahs for Iraq's majority-Shiite population. The day US bombs hit Iran is the day all Shiite Iraqi cooperation with the US ceases.)

it's sad, scary and depressing to realize once again, the rabid lambs of the blogosphere are ahead of the curve, but no one is listening. did you see this? certainly supports clark's assertion.
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but... no shit.

War is good for Republicans. Flashy bombing campaigns are good for Republicans. It makes them look like bold, decisive action heroes who aren't afraid to confront the Bad Men.

Plus killing and torturing Muslims is always in style, because it satisfies a collective desire for revenge, even if taken out upon those who didn't actually have anything to do with the actual crime.

It's less of a foregone conclusion that this strategy really will work to the Republicans' advantage this time around, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it *won't*, either.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder