Hey, Grand Moff Texan? One Pissed Off Liberal? I feel you. When Iran was little more than a pipe dream, I thought that that BushCo would just dust off old Iraq excuses to make his case.
But that was when Cobra Commander was still "somewhat" popular. Before his cronies and most trusted inner circle started shrinking. Now? Well, it's safe to say that (at least in Bush's mind) Iran is the last card he has to play to salvage his horrible foreign policy record. Not exactly the position you want to be in with your last year in office coming up.
Usually in these situations, presidents tone down their rhetoric and begin to extend olive branches to the other side. Not Bush; all signs point to him being more divisive than ever. And in regards to Iran, he's already getting a hand from the likes of Fox News and Joe Scarborough.
Now I know some people are cynical when it comes to an "We're going into Iran" diary, and I understand why: it's become a "Great Pumpkin" of sorts. Personally, I like to think of them as reminders of what this administration is capable of. Also, it's nice to go back and see what we've all learned since the diary was written. Since I wrote my last one I've picked up on too keen things about Bush when it comes to military action.
The first thing is: despite his image of "doing things his way," he always feels compelled to explain himself (why else would he constantly go to the stump to justify the Iraq occupation?). With that in mind, I don't see him making a move without giving a speech completely focused on Iran; whether it's an ultimatum for them to cease all things nuclear or an indictment on them for contributing to the violence in Iraq. He gave enough public speeches about Iraq before going in, and I suspect he'll do the same thing here.
The second thing is: Bush knows that your average non-political American will continue to support the Iraqi occupation (and any other military operation, for that matter) as long as it looks like Bush and the military is joined at the hip. It's one reason any high-ranking officer who's questioned any of Bush's strategies in Iraq has found themselves suddenly unemployed. There cannot be an impression that Bush is out of touch with the military, or that the military has serious reservations about the direction the War on Terror is taking.
But here's the scary part:
Bush is out of touch with the military; he doesn't seem to understand that he's running out of troops.
Despite positive re-enlistment news, Adm. Michael G. Mullen still felt compelled to warn us that the high troop levels won't hold. One theory? Bush's so-called surge (among other things) is killing troop morale. Then there are the suicides, the fact that recruiters are resorting to gimmicks...oh, and the mounting deaths.
In other words: The Decider is a quart low. As Fred Kaplan says, Bush's options for replenishing the ranks are either overdue (asking other nations to help), off the table (extending deployment again), politically impossible (a massive reservist callup), or will take up too much time and resources (bring back the draft).
Not to say that will stop him from banging the Iran war drums. After all, Bush lied his ass off to get us into Iraq.
If he tries to turn up the heat with either another surge or (God forbid) by attacking Iran without replenishing the ranks, things will only get worse. We could actually have a broken military. If he applies one of the aforementioned options, he may save the military and even give the next president something to salvage in regards to Iraq...but there's a good chance that this will cost him what's left of his "legacy."
Considering "the insiders say that while Bush wants to score legislative victories before he leaves Washington...he isn't going to give up on his principles," I'm guessing that "legacy" will trump "national security." But the question now isn't "Will he attack Iran?" but rather "Who is he going to attack Iran (or anybody else) with?"