January 11, 2007

We're Heading for Surge and Iran Unless the Public Speaks Out

Last night as I watched the president's address, I took a couple notes.

Seek out networks in Iran and Syria
Limited diplomacy surge with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, omitting Iran and Syria.
Glen Greenwald was struck by the same point. He urges everyone to pay close attention to Bush's intentions toward Iran in the days and months ahead. Aside from Bush's argument of "disrupting networks" and pre-empting potential Iranian nuclear ambitions, there is pressure to attack Iran.

In short, Busch can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

Another point struck me:

Bush committed 4,000 more troops to Anbar Province.
My count was 20,000 in Baghdad and 4,000, but today's papers cited 21,500. I had expected Bush to focus solely on Baghdad, but he at least has the "sense" to recognize the troubles extend beyond Baghdad.

Another point struck me:

Capital investment funding for jobs
Bush been one step behind at every turn of this war. He commits more troops, when it's too late. He adopts a socialist job-creation policy, when it's too late. It's too late for reconstruction projects because it has become too dangerous to do the work. How long will it be until we hear "A bomb blast ripped through a line of people applying for jobs....." "The Iraqis were killed by small arms fire while working on a....." "A mini bus with eight Iraqi reconstruction workers was riddled with gun fire...." as if this isn't already happening.

Another political reality is that the Democrats have nothing to gain from withdrawing support for a troop surge. If Democrats withdraw funds and authority for troops, they can be blamed for what ever happens there after. Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.

Given these "realities," the US is almost certain to surge the troops, and attack Iran, beyond the covert military operations already underway in Iran.

The only way to avoid this is for the US public to demonstrate a historically high amplitude of opposition to these two acts. The first step is for everyone concerned to immediately write and call their elected officials. I've done it, and it feels good to talk to a human. Ask them if they're receiving similar calls. If so, ask from which side of the issue they're receiving more calls.

Congressional Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate

Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

Media Contacts:

Write the Major Media Outlets


Simmons said...

Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.
It's in there political interest, but what about their REAL interests? But, that's being too optimistic and not realistic enough.
To the main point. Although there are many things that point to an upcoming war with Iran, it is highly unlikely, for one main reason: The military is stretched too thin. It would be suicide politically (probable impeachment) and the international community would be outraged.

GDAEman said...

Simmons: I'm not sure the Democratic party leaders could articulate their "real" interests. That in itself would be an interesting thread to discuss.

On the "main point" you raise, the Hawks won't use significant ground forces. They'll just hammer Iran from the air. They might even get Israel to use mini-nukes.

That said, you're right; Iran is no Iraq. Just remember well dug-in Hezbullah was when they were hammered by Israel.