http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18003.htm
The new drumbeat on Iran The Bush team's latest rationale for bombing Iran is even lamer than all the previous ones. But hey, Joe Lieberman buys it. Comforted? By Stephen Kinzer 07/11/07 "The Guardian" -- -- Why attack Iran? War hawks in Washington are having trouble answering that question. Even their dire warnings about Iran's nuclear program have not been enough to alarm Americans already weary of Middle East conflicts. Now the war drums have taken on a different tone. The Bush administration is testing a new rationale for attacking Iran: We must strike because Iranians are killing our soldiers in Iraq. This is not simply a charge made by one state against another in the hope that a misguided policy will be changed. It is also part of a calculated effort to find an argument for bombing Iran that Americans will accept. The politically ambidextrous Senator Joseph Lieberman, a vigorous supporter of Israel and the Iraq war, floated the new gambit a couple of weeks ago. He calculated that Iran-trained units fighting in Iraq, and weapons from Iran or manufactured with Iranian help, have been responsible for the death of 200 American soldiers. If Iran does not change course, he said, the United States should "take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq." Soon afterward, American press officers in Iraq began asserting that Iran is shipping weapons to Iraqi Shiite militias, specifically "penetrators" that can make roadside bombs more potent. Then last week a senior American commander in Iraq, General Kevin Bergner, charged that Iranians had helped plan a January attack in Karbala that left five American soldiers dead. "The reality of this is that they're killing American forces," the general said. Are Iranians really involved in the Iraq conflict, even arming and training militia units fighting US troops? Probably. Might factions within the diffuse, multi-polar Iranian government be encouraging such aid? Possibly. Iran has deep strategic interests in Iraq, its large, predominantly Shiite neighbor and longtime rival. It would be unthinkable for Iran to adopt a "hands-off" policy while Iraq's future is being decided. By invading Iraq, the United States deposed an old order and arrogated to itself the right to design a new one. Others - Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Kurds, Turks and a host of radical Jihadis - had different ideas. They have insisted on their right to influence the course of events in a suddenly chaotic Iraq. Americans threw Iraq up for grabs, and cannot now complain that many are grabbing for it. The larger question is whether Iran's involvement in Iraq - even if Iran could be found directly responsible for the death of Americans - is so outrageously provocative that it justifies an American attack. History argues that it is not. Most American soldiers killed in the Korean War fell victim to mines, bombs or bullets made in China. General Douglas MacArthur - sounding much like some in Washington today - wanted to carry the war into China itself. President Harry Truman wisely refused and, when MacArthur persisted, relieved him of his command. During the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam with weapons and ammunition that killed thousands of American soldiers. Yet no one in the Johnson or Nixon administrations ever considered attacking Moscow in retaliation. Nor did the Sandinista government in Nicaragua try to attack the United States during the 1980s, when American weapons and American-trained fighters were killing Nicaraguan soldiers and civilians. Helping friends during wartime is a tactic as old as proxy war itself. Accusing Iran of deep involvement in the Iraq war is more than a way to lay the groundwork for a US attack. It also provides a scapegoat for America's looming defeat. By this rationale, the American occupation would have succeeded, and Iraq would now be blooming and tranquil, if only Iran had not interfered and ruined everything. Not even Americans are likely to swallow that one. Most reject the various rationales the Bush administration has so far offered to justify a possible attack on Iran. If they remain hostile to the idea, President Bush will eventually have to ask himself a fateful question: Should I attack anyway? Attacking Iran would accomplish at least one thing Bush must be seeking. It will assure that future historians will not remember the invasion of Iraq as his biggest blunder. *** http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/opinion/12kristof.html?th&emc=th 'Inspiring Progress on Iraq?' By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF NY Times Op-Ed: July 12, 2007 As we debate what to do in Iraq, here are two facts to bear in mind: First, a poll this spring of Iraqis - who know their country much better than we do - shows that only 21 percent think that the U.S. troop presence improves security in Iraq, while 69 percent think it is making security worse. Second, the average cost of posting a single U.S. soldier in Iraq has risen to $390,000 per year, according to a new study by the Congressional Research Service. This fiscal year alone, Iraq will cost us $135 billion, which amounts to a bit more than a quarter-million dollars per minute. We simply can't want to be in Iraq more than the Iraqis want us to be there. That poll of Iraqis, conducted by the BBC and other news organizations, found that only 22 percent of Iraqis support the presence of coalition troops in Iraq, down from 32 percent in 2005. If Iraqis were pleading with us to stay and quell the violence, maybe we would have a moral responsibility to stay. But when Iraqis are begging us to leave, and saying that we are making things worse, then it's remarkably presumptuous to overrule their wishes and stay indefinitely because, as President Bush termed it in his speech on Tuesday, "it is necessary work." We can't afford universal health care at home - but we can afford more than $10 billion a month so that American troops can be maimed in a country where they aren't wanted? If we take the total eventual cost of the Iraq war, that sum could be used to finance health care for all uninsured Americans for perhaps 30 years. Or imagine if we invested just two weeks' worth of the Iraq spending to fight malaria, de-worm children around the globe and reduce maternal mortality. Those humanitarian projects would save vast numbers of lives and help restore America's standing in the world. On Tuesday, Mr. Bush argued that we should give the surge a chance and that the costs of withdrawal would be enormous. Just because President Bush says something doesn't mean it is fatuous. It's true, for example, that our withdrawal may lead to worse horrors in Iraq. But don't ignore the alternative possibility, believed overwhelmingly by Iraqis themselves, that our departure will make things better. Mr. Bush is also right that the surge is only just in place and may still enjoy modest success. Sectarian violence initially dropped in Baghdad (although it seems to have risen again since May), and it's impressive to see Sunni tribes cooperating with us in Anbar against foreign jihadis. Then again, even the Green Zone is now a daily target, Turkish troops may invade Kurdistan and brace yourself for battles in Kirkuk between Kurds and Arabs. Meanwhile, since Mr. Bush announced the surge, 600 American troops have been killed and 3,000 injured. But whatever happens on the streets that the Americans patrol, the only solution in Iraq is political, not military. The surge was supposed to build political space for that solution, and that is not happening. Progress has stalled on de-Baathification and constitutional reform, one-third of Iraq's cabinet is boycotting the government and people are turning to sectarian militias for protection. The Pentagon itself reported last month that 52 percent of Baghdad residents say that militias are serving the interest of the Iraqi people. In this desperate situation, the last best hope to break the stalemates in Iraqi politics will come if Congress forces Iraqi politicians to peer over the abyss at the prospect of their country on its own. If Congress makes it clear that the U.S. is heading for the exits - and that we want no permanent bases in Iraq - that may undercut the extremists and lead more Iraqis to focus on preserving their nation rather than expelling the infidels. It's nice that Mr. Bush is still confident about Iraq, telling us on Tuesday: "I strongly believe that we will prevail." Apparently, we're doing almost as well today as we were in October 2003 when he blamed journalists for filtering out the good news and declared: "We're making really good progress." Then in September 2004, Mr. Bush assured us that Iraq was "making steady progress." In April 2005: "We're making good progress in Iraq." In October 2005: "Iraq has made incredible political progress." In November 2005: "Iraqis are making inspiring progress." Do we really want to continue making this kind of inspiring progress for the next 10 years? You are invited to comment on this column at Mr. Kristof's blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
