General Bush's lose-lose Iranian war options

KoolAid, but less stupid KoolAid.

There is something unreal about the bellicose statements coming from some sources in the Bush administration towards Iran.

On their face, they make a kind of sense. In terms of pure military force, the United States probably could do a great deal of damage to Iran’s malevolent attempt to gain nuclear weapons. But so what? The same could have been said about Iraq in 2002.

Yes, the US military did have the capacity to destroy Saddam’s regime. And it did so in three weeks. The salient question was and is: what then? It appears that the Bush administration never seriously asked that question in advance of war in Iraq and, in a stunning fit of recklessness, never made serious plans for the post- invasion.

I don’t think even Donald Rumsfeld is nuts enough not to ask that question this time with respect to Iran. The military option is much more difficult, of course. Iran learnt from Saddam’s Iraq and has dispersed its nuclear research and development sites across the country. The US cannot invade and occupy two huge countries at the same time.

TimesOnLine

These people are self-referential, they all seem to think that a military action will resolve all problems. Or maybe not. Maybe they are desperate to provoke reaction like terrorist attacks on our soil, so they can justify martial law. Given the war crimes and looting they've committed and a voting population that may be too opposed to them to allow another round of stolen elections, the only option they have is start to WW3 so they can use this as the basis for taking down the Constitution and whatever remains of our democracy.

At this point, I think the Bushites are out of ideas and just pulling the levers randomly, hoping something will engage and change the situation. We are seeing a lot of recycling of previously tried ideas, mostly PR initiatives, from what one can tell, little or nothing is happening on the ground but the steady grinding away of violence.

I believe the key to understanding the seemingly absurd "strategy" of the Bush Administration is to review their rhetoric right after September 11. The alleged "War" on terror was going to last 40 or 50 years; they intended to "drain the swamp" of the middle east.

If you take these pronouncements literally, and if you regard them in the light of the Project for a New American Century's original manifesto, you realize that we are all looking at their actions from far too short of a time frame. Their goal is to make sure that the USA rules the world, and to prevent any other power from emerging to challenge the American Empire.

In order to conquer the middle east, and thereby gain control of the politics and resources of the region, the USA will have to re-colonize all the countries in the area. Obviously, the all-volunteer military and our current level of military commitment cannot accomplish this (demented) goal.

If you think only in terms of Bush's time in office, the futility of their grandiose theory seems perplexing, at best, and insane at worst.

But if you look at the domestic political spin which drives their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and seems to be driving their next war in Iran, you see that we are being intentionally drawn into quagmires. It is impossible to win any of these wars without a draft and without a total recasting of our national character -- but it is also politically impossible to get out of any of these wars.

Once we bomb Iran, and the Bush Government and the Right Wing Progaganda Machine breaks into Full Gloat Mode, the Iranians will launch their counter attacks -- and they will be painful.

Who in America will be able to stand up against the GOP Media Blitzkreig at that point? Who in the Congress will say that we cannot afford to respond to Iran's counter-escalation of the war Bush will have started? With ships sinking at sea, with our troops in Iraq under fire from Iranian guns, with fuel prices going through the roof due to Iranian revenge -- who will have the political strength to say, "Hey, it's Bush's fault and we never should have picked this fight!"?

Such voices will be plentiful on the internet and in street demonstrations -- all of which the Mainstream Media and all the Respected National Voices in the country will denounce as cowardice and treason.

No, Bush will not win the war against Iran. Nor will his successor. But the PNAC traitors will get what they want -- an open ended war against the whole Middle East that no American President can end.

The sponsors of the show, Halliburton, et. al, will get what they want, too: trillions of dollars spent on war for decades.

That is precisely why the Democrats should be educating the US voters as to why this war will start before the mid-terms. They must explain the thinking of the Republican neo-cons as to why this war without end is so important to the business interests that drive our foreign policy.

Trouble is, when the Democrats are refused the media oxygen needed to make the case, how will the American people understand the underlying reason this war will happen? It's like we can see this train wreck coming, but we are powerless to do anything to stop it.

among others, is that we're broke.

In fact, we're more than broke. The US has become something like a gambling junkie, always running back to the pawn shop to sell more stuff for pennies on the dollar, borrowing into oblivion, and so on.

The only thing the rest of the world has to do is to stop loaning us money, and the monster will grind slowly, painfully to a halt. :-(

Bend over, grab your ankles, and kiss your ass goodbye if McCain gets elected. He's deranged by his Vietnam experience.

:sarcasm: