Rattling a broken sabre
The L.A. Times pointed out that the administration is publicly blaming Iran for a recent attack in Iraq without any concrete evidence.
clammyc wants a pledge from our officials that if the neocons bomb Iran, they'll be removed from office. I agree there.
thereisnospoon can't understand why the hell they would want attack Iran to in the first place. I understand that as well.
But among all the confusion and worry about the possibilitity of invading Iran, there's one thing that simply boggles the mind about: supporting an invasion of Iran requires a disconnect from reality so large it should be grounds for an insanity plea. And honestly, I'm asking myself if the administration really expects the public to believe what they're selling.
I love everything clammyc writes, so I'd also like to have you read his piece on trust--and why we shouldn't believe the administration when it says, hints, intimates, asserts or gives any other semblance of credence to the veracity of the idea that Iran is behind attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
I agree wholeheartedly with this plan of attack, given the administration's history of abuse of intelligence. But this cannot be our only narrative.
If we argue merely on the grounds that the we cannot trust the administration to tell us the truth, we have automatically conceded the point that any Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. soldiers justifies an invasion--and it's this that I must take issue with.
Seriously, let's examine the administration's logic on this one for a little bit. Look at what they're saying:
We invaded Iraq. Our occupation is failing. Part of the reason it's failing is that Iran, a much bigger country with a more powerful army, is apparently helping the resistance in Iraq. Therefore, we should invade Iran because it's the only way to stabilize Iraq.
The logic in question is frankly insane. They have not even begun to question the wisdom or aftereffects of invading sovereign nations in the Middle East. Instead, they accept as unquestioned truth the idea that invasion is the only foreign policy option, regardless of previous failures or extrapolations of future difficulties.
No, I'd like to shift the discussion to a different stasis. Here's my message to the administration I don't care if Stephen Hadley's serial numbers give you conclusive proof that Iranian assets may have aided in a missile launch against a helicoptere--it STILL doesn't give you permission to invade anyone.
And the reason it doesn't isn't so much because you've spent so much time lying to us before. See, the fact that you lied your way into implementing your policy really doesn't bother me nearly as much right now as the simple fact that your policy sucks. I mean, honestly. It didn't work the first time, did it? And now you want to do it again, with a bigger country with a bigger army when our military is already bogged down with the first country you decided to invade?
Seriously, guys. You're going to occupy Iran? You and what army? You and what treasury?
We can debate trust until we're blue in the face. We can debate serial numbers and other "evidence" even longer. But I don't care, because the debate is about more than that. We can't act as though we need to disprove their accusations about Iran to prevent an invasion. We need to repeat loud and clear that even if their accusations are true, it's still a stupid idea.