If, several months or a year from now, we are in the middle of a catastrophic and ever-widening war triggered by an attack on Iran (by either the U.S. or Israel), let no Democrat be heard to say: "But there wasn't anything we could do! We didn't want this to happen, but there wasn't anything we could do to stop it!"
It's absolutely not true. If this nightmare should come to pass, they will be its co-equal creators together with the executive branch. I don't think people are willing to face just how disastrous the consequences of an attack on Iran would be. Again, read my earlier essay for further details. But people had better face it now, if they want to have a chance of stopping it.
Issuing statements of strong disapproval and generally deploring what the administration does are not remotely close to sufficient at this point. Undo both authorization of force resolutions, pass a resolution regarding impeachment, draft articles of impeachment now, and talk about the great dangers that face us every single day. And do it right now.
Stop the Iran War Before it Starts:
Until American politicians from either party show that they care more about the lives of the men and women in the armed forces who operate in harm's way than they do about their own political fortunes, we will remain in Iraq. It takes courage to stand up against this war when the tide of public opinion continues to hold out hope for victory. "Doing the right thing" is a thing of the past, it seems. "Doing the politically expedient thing" is the current trend. The American public may have articulated frustration with the course of events in Iraq, but this feeling is derived more from a frustration at being defeated than from any moral outrage over getting involved in a war that didn't need to be fought in the first place. Congress takes its cues from the American people, and until the American people are as outraged over the mere fact we are in Iraq as they are over the rising costs of the conflict--human, moral and financial--then Congress will continue to dither.
Republicans fucked everything up, and now Democrats don't seem willing to 1) fix it*, by doing absolutely everything they can to get troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, and 2) stop it from happening again, by containing President Bush's insane provoking of Iran.
* as later noted in comments, "fix it" wasn't the phrase I should have used
16 comments:
Why does pulling all the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible "fix it"?
good point, it doesn't come close to fixing it. it is just the best moral and strategic decision, giving the situation. doing that is a start towards fixing the problems that led to the terrible situation in the first place, but much of the damage could not possibly ever be fixed
Considering that 60% of Iraq is Shia and they border Iran, I believe the ensuing political vacuum after we leave would be quickly filled by Iranian influence. That I believe would be a huge disaster.
1) we should have thought of that before we invaded (this of course doesn't argue one way or another about what we should do now)
2) do you have reason to think that won't happen regardless?
3) what right do we have to forcefully prevent that?
Why Katsumoto and not Matsumoto? Or am I a moron and it's like "cat-sumoto"?
[off topic - Katsumoto is the Samurai Lord in The Last Samurai. Yes, Tom Cruise sucks, but that movie was awesome.]
link
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq
Thats a pretty good link. I agree with most of it, excluding the last three paragraphs. The author seems to have a problem with the fact that the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. He wields the same power that all of the Cold War Presidents did as well, JFK could have ended the world over the Cuban Missle Crisis. Without a Constitutional Amendment, the President stays the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. I think that by going through UN sanctions the US is laying groundwork for the US to try and get the UN to act, if it ever came to military action in Iran. The US would once again try and get international support, and unfortunately, I think, this would also probably fail again.
But he still draws funding for the military from Congressional appropriations, and Congress has to be the body to declare war. So Congress has a great deal of power that is could assert.
The last 3 paragraphs are about problems specific to GWB, specifically that he's a fucking idiot and can't be trusted.
you said:
2) do you have reason to think that won't happen regardless?
3) what right do we have to forcefully prevent that?
Don't we have something of a responsibility to try and protect the people of Iraq from death since we've caused so much of it? If the U.S. pulled out, it's likely a lot more people would die than if we didn't. If Iran tried to take over Iraq, surely a lot more would die. I'm not sure I like the cut and run mindset, it seems irresponsibly and immature to me. But, maybe like Vietnam, we just need to leave and let everything fuck itself up and take another political black mark. We're fucked either way, probably.
I disagree that it's not our business to have Iran running the show in the Middle East. It's very much our business, and the business of many many other people, and we should do what we can within reasonable limits to prevent that.
Don't we have something of a responsibility to try and protect the people of Iraq from death since we've caused so much of it?
I'm with you on this, if it is possible and if the Iraqis want our help. I'm not sure either of those conditions are met.
If the U.S. pulled out, it's likely a lot more people would die than if we didn't. If Iran tried to take over Iraq, surely a lot more would die.
There are a lot of assumptions here that I'm not just willing to concede.
I'm not sure I like the cut and run mindset, it seems irresponsibly and immature to me. But, maybe like Vietnam, we just need to leave and let everything fuck itself up and take another political black mark. We're fucked either way, probably.
The irresponsiblity, recklessness, arrogance, and stupidy that got us into this situation has left us with terrible options.
I disagree that it's not our business to have Iran running the show in the Middle East. It's very much our business, and the business of many many other people, and we should do what we can within reasonable limits to prevent that.
Why is it our business? And if it is, "reasonable limits" is the key phrase, and does not include pre-emptive war.
You said: "Why is it our business? And if it is, "reasonable limits" is the key phrase, and does not include pre-emptive war."
I think we fundamentally disagree on this point that the U.S. and the American people should have an interest in world affairs.
Judging from your response, it seems that you're promoting a "stand back and wait" stance on Iran, which I vehemently disagree with. What Iran is doing is very much our business. Do you not think that a country that publicly cries for the destruction of the U.S., Israel, and "the West", and one that is only a couple years from having nuclear weapons, and one that has close ties to terrorist organizations that do not have the political restraint to refrain from attacking anywhere it wants, is no business of America and its people?
I think we fundamentally disagree on this point that the U.S. and the American people should have an interest in world affairs.
I don't disagree at all with the idea that we should have an interest in world affairs. I do disagree with anyone who thinks preemptive war is an option of that interest in anything except the most extreme situations, which are no where close to being realized in Iran as far as I can tell.
Judging from your response, it seems that you're promoting a "stand back and wait" stance on Iran, which I vehemently disagree with.
If by "stand back and wait" you mean "not attack them or try to goad them into attacking us" then yes we should stand back and wait. Various diplomatic approaches are very appropriate.
What Iran is doing is very much our business. Do you not think that a country that publicly cries for the destruction of the U.S., Israel, and "the West", and one that is only a couple years from having nuclear weapons, and one that has close ties to terrorist organizations that do not have the political restraint to refrain from attacking anywhere it wants, is no business of America and its people?
Of course we should pay attention, but we shouldn't go in and attack them. And we shouldn't be acting more and more belligerent towards them.
I didn't say I supported preemptive force or attacking Iran, so I'm not sure what your comments add to the discussion. I do strongly believe that a nuclear Iran is entirely undesirable and incredibly dangerous and I hope that the world at large can do something without military action to steer the country away from its nuclear weaponry ambitions.
Well a good first step would be to impeach Bush and Cheney, who have done nothing but incentivize Iran's nuclear ambitions, and strengthen the political position of their crazy leader
Impeachment is beyond the realm of reality though.
Post a Comment