Thursday, March 16, 2006

I could think of things I never thunk before. And then I'd sit... and think some more.

The bloodshot eyes, the long weekends at Camp David, the grim somber expression that seems to say "I'm constipated." These can signify only one thing. Look out world; the Preznit is strategerizing.

Either that or he fell off the wagon.

No, it's that first thing:

"President to issue new national security strategy document."

(At least this will take care of his constipation problem.)

President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.

"Troubled?" That's a polite way to put a war with no foreseeable end, 2300 dead Americans, a situation where we're hated by pretty much everybody outside of the government and overextended strategically. Troubled = FUBAR.

The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in September 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States.

Or, as in the case of Iraq, just because we can.

The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has fatally undermined an essential assumption of the strategy -- that intelligence about an enemy's capabilities and intentions can be sufficiently reliable to justify preventive war.

Or that said intelligence wouldn't be manipulated for political reasons. The strategy assumes that those making the decisions to go to war are always good actors. Right out of the gate we found this to be untrue.

We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the document says, echoing a statement made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. It recommits to efforts with European allies to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations of nuclear weapons, then adds ominously: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Ominiously for whom? Certainly not the government of Iran who are sitting in the catbird's seat.

If I was a G.I. in Iraq right now surrounded by an overwhelmingly Shia population watching Bush and Cheney poke at the Iranian hornet's nest with a stick, a country with an army of over 15 million men and is predominantly Shia, I'd take the administration's warning as ominous.

Oh, and there's an election coming up so diplomacy won't look that appealing to this administration.

That poor G.I. is screwed.


Anonymous said...

Don't worry - we're not going to have any troops on the ground anymore. We're just going to blow stuff up from the air. Yay! That will put a stop to terrorism.

Don Snabulus said...

Things could certainly change but, outside the rhetoric, the Iranians and GOPs seem like the best of pals. They worked together to unseat Jimmy Carter. We took care of Saddam Hussein for them. We handed Iraq over to the Shiites for them. In turn, the Iranians ramp up the rhetoric to make the snake oil the GOP is peddling more attractive.

I will actually be quite surprised if either party decides to mess up that deal.

Dean Wormer said...


I agree that Iran got what it wanted with us taking Saddam out.

But I really expect there to be an air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the end of the summer. Maybe that's where it'll end, maybe not.

But when I consider so much that I'd expect to be self-obvious to the administration about how stupid a full scale war with Iran I'm not too hopeful. We all know they take strategic incompetence to the max.

I see what you're saying about them protecting their self-interest with Iran but the political ramifications of failing to bomb somebody else may just be too much for them.