Bush and the bushzis are probably delighted with all the flap about his foolish "surge" plan. A few folks have suggested here and elsewhere that the escalation of troop levels in Iraq is merely a disguised deployment of troops toward Iran, but I've never considered that a serious possibility. The number of troops proposed is far too small. Even with their addition we would not have any near enough troops to so much as defend the Iran/Iraq border. Moreover the coming war with Iran will be initiated and prosecuted mainly from the air. By and large, it's my feeling that while escalation must be opposed, vigorously, the preparations for war with Iran deserve way, way more attention than they are getting.
MSNBC has frontpaged an AP article that speaks for itself:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Citing Iranian involvement with Iraqi militias and Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration has shifted to offense in its confrontation with Iran — building up the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf and promising more aggressive moves against Iranian operatives in Iraq and Lebanon.
The behind-the-scenes struggle between the two nations could explode into open warfare over a single misstep, analysts and U.S. military officials warn.
Iraq has become a proxy battleground between Washington and Tehran, which is challenging — at least rhetorically — America’s dominance of the gulf. That has worried even Iraq’s U.S.-backed Shiite prime minister, who — in a reflection of Iraq’s complexity — also has close ties to Iran.
This is insanity, pure and simple. Put enough arms and human beings in one place and sooner or later something is going to go off by accident. Someone is going misunderstand a command, or is going to get scared and that's going to be that. Our increased presence in the region begs another fiction like the Gulf of Tonkin. Does anyone not distrust Mr. Bush on that score?
It is absolutely insane to continue to push insanely when a reasonable approach is so readily available. We've been assured time and again that although Iran is headed by a crackpot, there are many in his country who oppose him and would welcome improved relations with the US. Yet we continue to act as if every one of the 70,000,000 Iranians we're about to attack is as loony as their leader.
I often disagree with Tom Friedman, but he hit it square on the head with his piece in today's New York Times (paywalled):
After painting a vivid picture of the fertile lanscape for negotiation that Iran presents, he gets down to business thus:
This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro’s Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran’s Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.
How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can’t push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran’s hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.
Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.
Why is it so terribly difficult for this president (whom we are stuck with for 720 more days) to grasp the benefits of talking with one's "enemies."?
I am scared to death that my prediction on the eve of the invasion of Iraq is coming true. The day we invaded I wrote on a friend's whiteboard: "Iran is next. Bad idea or not." It's still there and it's still true and now it's coming true.
I intend to pour every ounce of political energy that I have into cajoling and convincing every politician I can that we must, absolutely must, rein in Mr. Bush and pull back from this precipice before it is too late.