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."
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."
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.
 Barney Porter "Bush steps up anti-Iran rhetoric
" ABC News October 1, 2007. (Accessed October 1, 2007)
Labels: Draft, Iran, Military Ethics