Saturday, October 21, 2006


The More We Holler About This, The Better Chance We Have Of Keeping It From Happening

The USS Eisenhower and its armada -- and its missiles -- are now coming into range of Iran. As has been mentioned previously, an attack on Iran is a bad, bad, BAD idea. It would end our chances of a relatively easy exit from the abbatoir next door that is post-invasion Iraq. But it's also the sort of thing that Karl Rove would favor for the purpose of scaring the voters back into the arms of the GOP (and thus keeping the Democrats from getting control of the house, along with the power to subpoena witnesses in official investigations of Republican corruption and malfeasance). The one thing most likely to keep such a politically-motivated attack from happening would be if most Americans knew it was planned, and knew why it was planned. So spread the word. The more it's discussed, the more likely we can keep it from happening.

There is next to zero chance of the US precipitating a conflict with Iran. Yes, some neocons would still love to attack; maybe a war with Iran would increase Republican votes this Novermber, but even that, is no sure thing.

There will be no attack for a whole litany of logical reasons, beginning with the realization now by this administration that Iran will dominate the Gulf during any war, because of their anti-ship missles. The US fleet cannot get close enough to the Gulf to protect shipping, without endangering the aircraft carriers.

The only way to prevent Iran from stopping oil shippping in the Gulf is to utterly destroy the country, probably through nuclear weapons. That would bring China and Russia into the conflict.

The lessons of Iraq have not been lost on the Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon. There is no support for a preemptive strike on Iran; VP Cheney, Carl Rove, etc cannot do it by themselves.

Progressives obsessing over this issue must have the reactionary forces in the USA splitting their sides with laughter. The more citizens focus on a boogey-man like this, the less they focus on:
-health care
-balanced budget
-clean energy
-sustainable growth

Make sense?

QR, two things:

1) Are you saying that people like General Wesley Clark don't know what they're talking about when they warn against this possibility?

2) The armada is in the Persian Gulf right now. As has been discussed before, the Eisenhower was supposed to be staying Stateside for a while. Suddenly, two months ago, she's ordered to prepare for a mission to the Gulf, with no real explanation given, just as BushCo ramps up the bomb-Iran talk.

And the kicker:

3) If Bush and the PNAC Platoon were irrational enough to invade Iraq despite the warnings given by people from all over the ideological spectrum, what makes you think they'd balk at bombing Iran?

Remember, we're talking about the same people who do NOT learn from experience and who gladly bought into Ahmad Chalabi's 'flowers and candy' myth.
Yeah, basing much of anything on the idea that Bush & Co. will behave rationally is a losing proposition. It was also laughable that they would cut taxes going into a war, and the Chinese are still splitting their sides over that one.
Maybe we can get the Iranians to purchase 10-year bonds, allowing us to pay the Chinese for troops which we can use to outsource our invasion of them.


Things are weird now.
I think that BushCo is capable of attacking Iran, even in an obvious "wag the dog" October surprise. They haven't impressed me with their rationality on national defense issues, or any other issues for that matter.

That said. the ship movements at this time seem to me to be normal force rotation -- other ships are coming off-line and the Eisenhower
et. al. are taking their places.
joel hanes
Post a Comment

<< Home

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

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder