“Santorum nonetheless shifted to more serious
foreign policy topics such as Iran toward the end of his remarks.
"If
we reach a point where I believe the only thing that will stop them from this
program being realized and having a nuclear weapon - I will make a clear
declaration to the Iranian government that you either open your facilities, you
begin to dismantle this nuclear program, or we will dismantle it for you,"
Santorum told the crowd to much applause. He then argued that acquiring a
nuclear weapon would allow Iran "carte blanche to spread a reign of terror
around not just the Middle East, but here in America, here in Florida, here
across western civilization."
“Quickly
dismissing the idea that such aggression would be an act of war, Santorum said
it would be justified, comparing the Iranian government to the terrorist
organization al Qaeda.
"They're
just as radical as the people who run al Qaeda - their theology is identical.
Again different strengths, but identical in their fundamentalist, Jihadist version
of Islam," Santorum said. "We cannot allow the equivalent of al Qaeda
to have this weapon."
Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?
By BILL KELLER
Published: January 22, 2012
“…In the Republican field we have one candidate (Rick Santorum) who is about as close as you can get to the
bomb-sooner-rather-than-later extreme, another (Ron Paul) who is at the
let-Iran-be-Iran extreme, and Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in between. Of particular
interest is Romney, who has performed the same rhetorical trick with Iran that
he did with health care. That is, he condemns Obama
for doing pretty much what Romney would do…”
“…American policy has been
consistent through the Bush and Obama administrations: (1) a declaration that a
nuclear Iran is “unacceptable”; (2) a combination of sticks (sanctions) and
carrots (supplies of nuclear fuel suitable for domestic industrial needs in
exchange for forgoing weapons); (3) unfettered international inspections; (4) a
refusal to take military options off the table; (5) a concerted effort to
restrain Israel from attacking Iran unilaterally — beyond the Israelis’
presumed campaign to slow Iran’s progress by sabotage and assassination; and
(6) a wish that Iran’s hard-liners could be replaced by a more benign regime, tempered
by a realization that there is very little we can do to make that happen. This
is also the gist of Romney’s Iran playbook, for all his bluster about Obama the
appeaser…”
“…The point of tough sanctions, of course, is
to force Iranians to the bargaining table, where we can do a deal that removes
the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. (You can find some thoughts on what such a deal might entail on my
blog.) But the mistrust is so deep, and the election-year pressure to act with
manly resolve is so intense, that it’s hard to imagine the administration would
feel free to accept an overture from Tehran. Anything short of a humiliating,
unilateral Iranian climb-down would be portrayed by the armchair warriors as an
Obama surrender. Likewise, if Israel does decide to strike out on its own, Bibi
Netanyahu knows that candidate Obama will feel immense pressure to go along.
That short-term paradox comes
wrapped up in a long-term paradox: an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify
the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to
redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and
without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes
hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we
are trying to prevent.
Cassi Creek: Just what we need now, another unfunded
un-winnable war against an Islamic state demanded by the teavangelists.
There’s every chance for a
shooting war to develop between Iran and us.
The Pentagon has gamed out every potential play for every predictable
scenario. No matter how it games out,
the plans become trash to be shredded once the first border is violated, the
first bullets fired by some trigger-happy would-be-martyr, and the first missile
fired by some Revolutionary Guards Navy officer. That, of course, ignores the point that we
are already unofficially at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Don’t forget
Santorum’s religion. With the
xenophobic, anti-Islamic support of the redneck pulpit pounding teavangelists,
he seems as willing to start another crusade, as do the mullahs of Iran who
brand the U.S. and Israel as eternal enemies of Iran.
Of course, it is easier to start
a war if you have no personal risk of being invited to dance. Our all-volunteer armed forces backed up by
expensive mercenary companies owned by friends of Congress fills its dance card
as soon as the doors are open. Recent
history shows us that we don’t and won’t have the personnel strength to take
part in another round of foreign-soil adventurism.
We’re correct in believing that
we need to keep the sea-lanes open. But
we need to make it plain to all the industrialized nations that their navies
are invited to the party as well. Since
we don’t buy Iranian oil we shouldn’t sponsor the dance, particularly that
contingent of dancers who took off our national uniform to put on a corporate
costume.
Santorum, Gingrich, and two
generations of Americans have avoided most forms of military service while
pushing for wars to control oil and other commodities used by speculators to
pile up fortunes that are larger than the combined treasuries of Central America. They view war as video games played on a
larger screen by people who can’t afford to play them electronically. They consider the current KIA and WIA totals
as horrific. Their concept of wars is
sanitized and is played out remotely. Thus,
they demand that Americans join yet another crusade stirred up by hate mongers
and demagogues who find it all too easy to push the teavangelists into
believing that forcing school prayer onto the public and cheering for posturing
athletes will convince Jesus to intercede in a war with Iran while
simultaneously restoring jobs to the American Middle class.
That isn’t the way it is. The number of men and women we’ve lost in
combat may be smaller than in previous wars but they were important to their
families and to their shipmates and squad mates. The nature of a war with Iran over nuclear
weaponry will be much different than the drone strikes and small unit battles
we see on television today. The body
counts on both sides will outstrip the imagination of the politicians who let
the teavangelists push them into supporting yet another war for
corporations.
There’s a very good reason I
think our politicians should be required to serve in our combat branches. Its explanation begins with a five-letter
word, “Medic!"
No comments:
Post a Comment