Who Stopped the Talks?“, posted at Abu Muqawama (6 May 2008) — Opening:
Dr. iRack took note of some big news today: the Iranians have decided to halt talks with the United States over the security situation in Iraq until American forces stop their assault on Sadr City. According to the New York Times:…
Typically terse and excellent analysis from Abu Muqawama, about an important subject, and well worth reading. This news brings to mind — again — America’s objectives in the Middle East. Bush and his officials appear to believe that we can talk or bully Iran into allowing us to reshape Iraq into a giant forward operating base. Like so many others, I wonder how strongly we would resist Iran’s efforts to do the same with Mexico or Canada. Making the almost impossible a key foreign policy objective guarantees interesting times for America.
Also fascinating on this and similar sites are the frequent recommendations in the comments section to unleash the dogs of war — usually without objection from others. Without mention of costs (money or blood), odds of success, risks, or potential adverse consequences. Not that different from the sabre-rattling of the Bush Administration.
This comment by “Tom” clearly states his opinion, which should give the chills to any readers familiar with history. Here we see the neo-con world view, stripped to bare essentials, without the fancy reasoning and facile logic of William Kristol and his peers.
There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that diplomacy will work with Iran. On the other hand, there’s lots of evidence that when we kill members of the Qods Force, those dead guys won’t attack us anymore.
I say lance the boil. Hit the terrorist training camps, and when Iran retaliates, give the mullahs the worst week of their lives. The good thing about an attack on Iran is that nobody will expect us to rebuild the stinking third-world craphole afterward. Since most Iranians support their nuclear-weapons program, I say let the whole miserable country reap the whirlwind.
It’s time to stop these bastards by destroying their offensive capabilities, something we are surely capable of doing from the air and sea. … we’ve already had two rounds of talks with Iran, and all it did was result in more Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq.
Diplomacy only works when there’s a credible threat. The Iranians think we won’t hit them no matter what.
This echos the enthusiasm for war in 1914, or the opening scene in the movie Gone with the Wind.
Mr. O’HARA: The South must assert ourselves by force of arms. After we fired on the Yankee rascals at Fort Sumter, we’ve got to fight. There’s no other way.
MAN1: Fight, that’s right, fight!
MAN2: Let the Yankee’s be the ones to ask for peace.
Mr. O’HARA: The situation is very simple. The Yankees can’t fight and we can.
CHORUS: You’re right!
MANS: That’s what I’ll think! They’ll just turn and run every time.
MAN1: One Southerner can lick twenty Yankees.
MAN2: We’ll finish them in one battle. Gentlemen can always fight better than rabble.
MANS: Yes, gentlemen always fight better than rabble.
Amazing how the boomers marched — even rioted — for peace in their youth, and now lead an America more militant than any generation since the Spainish-American War. How do these comments sound to our allies? To our enemies? To those Americans not eager for another war (or just a wider war)? Unless more speak up, we might — by design or accident — go to war with Iran.
Fortunately it is an election year. Elections make us responsible for what our officials do in our name. Make your views known.
Please share your comments by posting below, relevant and brief please. Too long comments will be edited down (very long ones might be deleted). Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).