This type of diary is not my normal fare. I generally am not great at instant analysis. There are better bloggers here and all over the internets for this type of thing but watching a number of events occuring at DailyKos has caused me to venture way out from my comfort zone.
Two DKos regular contributors who I truly respect, mcjoan and BigTentDemocrat, are making the case here and here that much of the bluster by the administration about Iran is a carefully planned ploy to get Democrats, the media and the people at large to look over at Iran for a bit while they achieve their underhanded aims in Iraq. Note, this is a huge simplification of mcjoan's and BTD's argument, but I think the summary is accurate enough. They aren't arguing to ignore Iran altogether. They are mostly making the case that we shouldn't take our eye off of Iraq and domestic issues by falling for the head fake at Iran. It's a subtle argument, but I think it's wrong for a few reasons. The problem with subtle arguments is that sometimes they can be too clever by half.
The biggest counterargument is that the stakes are huge if you're wrong. If Bushco is planning a war against Iran and the Democrats fail to do everything in their power to not only try to thwart it with legislation, but also to call attention to Bush's plans to the public, then that would be a miscalculation of huge proportions. As I said above, there are people far smarter than me making this argument. I read the Atlantic every month so I get plenty of James Fallows. I'm not exactly a huge fan. But he's a very analytical researcher and writer. He also made a very public apology for being wrong on Iraq. I do think he speaks to the main point here. Let's face it, whether we surge for 2 years and pull out, or pull out immediately, 100's of thousands of Iraqis are bound to die either way. It's hard to say whether things will get better or worse in Iraq if we stay or go. We're pulling out to save our own blood and treasure at this point. So mcjoan's and BTD's insistence that we handle things one at a time... first Iraq, and then Iran, doesn't take into account the incalcuable result of the differences between alternatives in Iraq as compared to the easily calculated differences between alternatives in Iran. As Fallows basically states, in Iran you're attacking a country that's 4 times as large with 3 times the population as Iraq has. And I might add, they haven't been subject to crippling sanctions for 11 years prior to attack, either. And I shouldn't even have to mention they have better allies in Russia and China than Iraq did prior to the war.
So, even if Bushco is bluffing, even if it is a red herring, can we really afford to follow the advice of mcjoan and BTD and call their bluff. The stakes are just too high.
Another reason why calling it a red herring is reckless is that it demeans the great arguments being put forth by the likes of Digby, Kevin Drum, Jeff Huber, clammyc and many others. These pundits aren't arguing to ignore Iraq altogether. They are saying "Hey everyone! While we're trying to stop Bush in Iraq, let's not forget what's going on in Iran!" I haven't heard one respectable pundit make the case that we should drop all efforts to stop the War in Iraq to concentrate on thwarting Bush's efforts against Iran. They're advocating the idea that we must walk and chew gum at the same time. So in the end, the red herring argument has set up a straw man that doesn't exist... the nervous nelly pundit that is now telling us to switch course entirely from Iraq to Iran. Even Matt Yglesias isn't saying this.
The main rationale for mcjoan's and BTD's argument is that Biden, Pelosi and others have already laid out the position of Congress that the Bush administration does not have the authority to take military action against Iran. Many pundits have also pored over the Authorizations to use Force both against al Qaeda and Iraq and have found them wanting in regards to allowing an unprovoked attack against Iran. This argument would be fine if we were dealing with a rational administration, but we aren't. BTD and mcjoan aren't arguing that Bushco won't go to war with Iran. They are arguing that Congress has already done all it needs to do to prevent a military action. And this is simply wrong. Democrats in Congress can act to withdraw these authorizations. Arthur Silber, on his blog, makes the case for the Congress to go even further and begin a pre-emptive articles of impeachment. Perhaps they won't be successful in doing so, but at least they draw greater attention of the media and the public to this issue. And if the attacks do happen, then at least the Democrats can claim that they tried to do everything possible. That beats the hell out of... "well, Joe and Nancy and Harry assured us it would be alright.".
Here is mcjoan's final conclusion:
If we are going to call for Iran hearings, let's call for hearings about the administration's efforts to build a case against Iran in the context of the Iraq war. Those hearings could lead to a revision of the AUMF to explicitly prohibit strikes against Iran.
The key word here is "if". In other words, let's think about this some more before moving toward revisions or withdrawals of AUMF's. And if we can't place it within the context of the Iraq War, perhaps we shouldn't even think about it.
No mcjoan! The stakes are too high. We can walk and chew gum. And there is much more we can do. Please, let go of this "red herring" phrase when talking about Iran.
LINKS
Where Congress Can Draw the Line, James Fallow - http://www.theatlant...
Time Has Run Out -- and the Choice Is Yours, Arthur Silber - http://powerofnarrat...