Posted on 04/14/2008 6:06:15 PM PDT by pissant
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this -- and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations -- Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
He believes that this is the sure way to end America as we know it, by over-comitting around the world. At the same time we seem unwilling to ask others to fund their own defense.
For example, Japan spends less that 1% of their GNP on defense, yet has the 2nd largest economy in the world and we still have our military stationed in Japan. If N. Korea erupts, who is on the front line facing the 7,000 tubes of artillery?
I am all for confronting evil, especially dictatorships, but would not it be more responsible to get others, like Japan, Germany, Korea etc to fund a greater part of their own defense?
schu
We have military stationed around the world on far flung bases because it is in our best strategic interest.
I hope Pat takes the VP slot on the Alan Keyes ticket. They’re both half crazy.
What Party is Keyes running in since he gave up the GOP?
Not sure why we still have thousand's of troops stationed in Germany.
PB’s position is that we have signed on to treaties/agreements which we are entirely unable to fulfill. So if the world circumstances change such that we need to meet our treaty obligations in multiple locations simultaneously, we will have to renege on our commitments.
Why is that a good idea?
schu
And then Saudi Arabia.
BUMP!
Lafayette was an American?
any one that will take him or he'll make up a good one like "The Constitutional Christian Ol' Glory Patriot Party."
First of all, we don’t have that many formal treaties. But what we do have is a NATO Alliance whose primary purpose was to thwart the USSR’s very real ambitions. It seemed to work out OK.
Russia is still a threat, and China is a growing menace, so it does not make sense to abandon our bases throughout the world. We need a bigger military still, by a good 50%.
We have formed other alliances as well. With the Aussies and Japan, with Israel, with Canada, etc. If any of these countries were to be invaded, you can bet that we would be there to fight by their side, treaty or not.
The history of the world is one of constant warfare. Many of them skirmishes (iraq falls into that category) and proxies, but powerful nations fighting wars is the norm, not the exception. There is nothing that has changed that. So I’m am 1000% behind having bases and combat readiness planted all over the globe.
Yes, allies should pick up more of the tab, but post WWII, they simply haven’t. That does no mean we should follow suit.
We have thousands of troops stationed in Germany because it is a stable democracy that is a heck of a lot closer to the ME than we are. Lots of staging of personnel in and out of elsewhere in the world go though Germany. One of our biggest military medical centers is there; the most severely injured personnel from the ME go to Germany instead of flying all the way home.
No, he was a frog. And the French aided the Revolution not out of their unbridled love for us but their hatred of the Brits.
Suggest you read the book, that is not what PB says. Here are some examples:
NATO
Mutual security treaty with S Korea
Japan-US mutual security treaty in 1960
Taiwan Relations Act of 1979
Mutual security treaty of 1951 with the Philippines
SEATO/Manila Act and Thailand and Pakistan
ANZUS Pact of 1951 with Australia
1947 Rio Treaty with Latin America
Not sure about the level of commitment as I am not a treaty expert.
For the record, I do NOT subscribe to PB's world view, I do believe we have a role in maintain world order and peace, especially where we have significant interests. I especially disagree with him on Israel.
Just read it, you will be surprised.
schu
Here's my half-baked idea. Announce that we will begin destroying the icons of Islam - mosque by mosque, shrine by shrine, all the way to mecca, if necessary - until the mullahs are gone. Islam is what fuels this, why not gut its earthly connections?
I’d say a combination of the two. Otherwise, Lady Liberty would not exist.
Russia has no good reason to object. If we destroy Iran's military hardware, Russia gets to sell them a whole new set. ;)
As always, we're the bad guy....
“George Washington was an isolationist.”
And he was right to be one. We had just fought a long and bl;oody revolution. Our country was in its infancy, awkward and uncertain as it began to take its fiorst tentative steps. Isolationism was imperative at that time. We needed time to grow and mature, to find ourself; the last thing we needed when George Washington called for isolationism was foreign entanglements. We are now the world’s only superpower. Our reach and our influence are global now. We cannot afford to be isolationists any longer. Hell, we had a pretty sizeable isolationist movement here in the late 1930s and the first two years of the 1940s. The world in general and America in particlar are damn fortunate we ignored those isolationists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.