Monday, October 01, 2007

U.S. govt. preparing to screw tomorrow's college students: the sequel

There is a lot of talk in the last few weeks about the possibility of the U.S. bombing Iran. I think such an action, if indeed it ends up being a military action, might finally be the tip-off to college age young people that their future is once again being screwed by a particularly virulent association of morons (i.e. neo-conservatives) in the U.S. executive branch. Students might want to review what is their constitutional right to protest while in school. I just don't relish the thought of stepping into class and pondering what my professorial peers must have in the 1960s: "Here is Americas best; here is America's fodder. These are the sacrificial lambs for people too stupid to realize how to engage in constructive international diplomacy." Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that might lower job my satisfaction as a professor.

Dr Michael McKinley, a senior lecturer in International Relations and Strategy at the Australian National University, says a US attack on Iran, even a so-called "surgical" strike, would lead to war.
"If the United States was to engage in surgical strikes, as some people are once again talking about, you would have to say that Iran could very well behave in such a way, and there'd be a broad scope of possibilities here, where a widely escalated war would need to ensue after that, because I cannot imagine that Iran would just allow itself to be attacked without taking some sort of forceful reaction."[1]

But if we are in Iraq when this happens, and if we still maintain the full commitment of troop strength in order to keep Iraq stable, then where would the new manpower come from when Iran decides to get hostile? Why, the selective service database, of course; in other words, some sort of draft would ensue.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has been writing about the possibility of a US strike on Iran for the past 18 months, and he has noted a change in rhetorical strategy coming out of the Bush administration:
"The name of the game used to be that they're a nuclear threat, Iran is going to have a bomb soon, we have to do it, sort of the same game we had before the war in Iraq. What's happened is that in that last few months they've come to the realization that's it's not selling, the American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat, certainly as they were about Iraq, there's just some skepticism. So they've switched, really. Instead of trying to sell it, not only to the American people but to its allies, the notion of a massive bombing against the infrastructure, what they call counter-proliferation against the infrastructure of the Iraqi bomb, hitting the various facilities that we know exist - instead, they've now decided that they're going to hit the Iranians, payback for hitting us."[1]

How convenient that Iran is meddling in Iraq. Or somebody from Iran. Or maybe a portion of the Iranian military not directly affiliated with government policy. I am very suspicious of the logic which runs as follows: since the munitions used in Iraq are manufactured in Iran, the Iranian government is directly involved in undermining the US mission in Iraq. Therefore, the sole US option is to attack Iran. The last time, I fell for such parlor tricks as justification for attacking Iraq. But now I am raising the bar of evidence much higher before I buy in, for I know we have both unintelligent and irresponsible leadership in the executive branch.


O.

Note: I am not a Democrat. I am a veteran.

REFERENCES


[1] Barney Porter "Bush steps up anti-Iran rhetoric" ABC News October 1, 2007. (Accessed October 1, 2007)

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At 2:40 PM, Blogger Taylor Caraway said...

Right, wrong or indifferent, this is one of those subjects I refuse to take time to gather information on because my forming an opinion can only bring frustration.

For me, it's like riding in the bed of a pickup whose driver is high on meth; no matter how well-construed your yelling is, it will never do any good, and jumping completely out of the truck begins to seem like the only viable option, no matter how undesireable the consequences.

 
At 2:39 AM, Anonymous w0lph said...

Brint:

Posit that the government (whomever is currently in power) has access to intelligence that you do not have (as a middle-class american). I think that we can both agree that your analysis of the situation could be limited by your not having those information resources.

I think that we can both agree to the following argument:
i. only a statment with sufficient justification can be considered valid.
ii. a statement may have sufficient justification iff it has access to information of weight greater than public domain.
iii. your statement does not have access to non-public domain sources
...your statement is not valid.

Now, it is true that a full scale attack on Iran, or anything that might encourage Iran to conduct a war against us would be irrational GIVEN knowledge of our current military strength and morale. However, nieither you nor I have considered the possibilty of SpecOps. If in fact, we can conduct operation inside Iran that would hinder their ability to do business with Russia, or Iraq, without Iran having direct evidence of our involvement, would make sense to employ (and deploy) SpecOps into Iran. This, I would hope is our Nation's first choice of Action.


It seems to me that one of our biggest problems in Iraq has been Urban warfare, and our troops being unable to engage a "lesser enemy".

The entire puporse behind the ninja (for example) was to conduct interdictions, uprisings, intelligence gathering and support for local opposition forces against the enemy state. I would imagine that such a force of spies proves to be much more advantageous than Billy Bob Solider from BeeBee, Arkansas who only knows how to "point and shoot".

It is the job, in my opinoin for students of the Ivory Tower to conduct their studies with the intent of being good businessmen and good capitalists. For, without industry, their is not hope of sustaining national sovreignty: Economy = Political Power.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home