Life as a Spectator Sport

Many of us couldn't believe the Bush administration would actually start a pre-emptive war against Iraq, considering the shaky nature of the intelligence, the fact that UN inspectors insisted there weren't any WMD's and the known ties to oil of many of the decision makers. Congress wouldn't go along with it, we thought. The American public wouldn't stand for the US to break its commitment never to make an unprovoked strike against another country. We were wrong. Even now, knowing the WMD's weren't there, that much of the intelligence we were given was either cherry-picked to make it look better than it was, or was actually known to be wrong at the time it was presented to the public--even now, not everyone is convinced that their country commited a grievous wrong, or at best, a huge error of judgment.

But I think we all have said it couldn't happen again. Congress really couldn't support another Middle East war. Americans couldn't possibly be persuaded that firing on another country could in any way be justified.

Looks like we were wrong again. According to an article by Seymour Hersh in tomorrow's New Yorker (and Seymour Hersh was one of the few who saw the Iraq planning for what it was), Bush is not only planning to begin air strikes on Iran, but planning to use nuclear bombs.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

Regime change? Sound familiar? The difference between regime change in Iraq and regime change in Iran is that Saddam Hussein was popular with only the small minority who benefitted from his dictatorship. There are dissidents in Iran but they make up a far smaller percentage of the population than they did in Iraq.

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.”

But surely Congress won't be taken in again with the far-fetched notion of regime change. Think again.

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

In other words, only certain people in Congress, the ones who are already likely to back Bush and the neoconservatives, are being told what is going on. And the tactic appears to be working.

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

But we wouldn't use nuclear weapons in a first-strike war. We wouldn't! Well, maybe we would, no matter how horrifying that may seem to most people.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

There is, of course, a huge difference between the nuclear strike against Japan, bringing to a quick end a war that threatened to drag on for many more months, and the use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive action. Apparently our civilian government doesn't think so. The military planners may be the ones who save us here.

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.

[..]

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. "The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country," he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

From a purely personal point of view, I'm not sure I would feel safe doing my job any more. A very large percentage of the stores I inspect are owned by people of Middle Eastern origin. I've never worried about going into those stores as a representative of our government. I've never been hassled; I've never even been asked about my political beliefs or whether I supported the war against Iraq. I'm not sure that would be the case any more if we dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran. I suspect I would start wearing a very large and prominent button stating my opposition to the action, and I'd still feel uncomfortable in those stores. Iran was our ally for decades, and many Iranians came here as students, as young military officers and as welcomed immigrants. Very many of them are still here, now as citizens or as legal alien residents. As concerned as they may be about the nuclear ambitions of their former home, the idea of America dropping nuclear bombs on it must horrify them, and understandably so. Wouldn't any American feel the same way in similar circumstances? I know ex-pat Americans who are disgusted with America's recent behavior, but who would take up arms in a heartbeat in defence of their birthplace if someone attacked us with nuclear weapons.

Another disturbing fact now coming out is the move to transfer intelligence operations, now supposedly under the oversight of Congress (for all the good that has done) to the military.

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we want.”

So I would say that we're going to war, and this time, Americans at home are going to be deeply affected by it. Regardless of the real dangers inherent in Iran having nuclear capability (and I don't mean to minimize those dangers), attacking Iran is not going to sit well with its friends (Russia and China, our historic Cold War enemies), nor with our former friends.

Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. “The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,” the European intelligence official told me. “He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.” An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. “Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.”

What is the likely result of America attacking Iran, even without nuclear weapons? A severe decrease in available crude oil would be just the start. We could expect terror attacks in America, and any of our current allies who didn't condemn us would be at risk for the same.

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that "allowing Iran to have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous." He added, "The whole internal debate is on which way to go"—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. "God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen."

I've quoted only bits and pieces of Seymour's article. Read the whole thing--he goes into far more detail than I can cover.

It's sobering to realize that our war against Iraq was probably the tipping point for Iran, and even more frightening when you read fundamentalist polemic that approves war in the Middle East because it might hasten the Rapture. The people on both sides are scary. They're crazy, and most Americans just don't seem to care. Again, we're going to get what we voted for. What an inheritance to leave our children and grandchildren--the country that once prided itself on freedom, democracy and fair play has renounced its principles, squandered its surplus on war, trashed its citizens' freedom and privacy in the name of "security" and torn down the infrastructure that made America a great place to live.

And as before, I have to ask, Where is the money going to come from to begin and carry on another war? China and "friendly" Middle Eastern countries are among the biggest investors in America. Do we really think they will continue to buy our dollars if we start a war with Iran, particularly a nuclear war? Most people don't know that management of America's major toll roads is leased to foreign investors, just as terminal operations at our major ports were going to be leased to Dubai Ports World. Transportation of consumer goods could be virtually shut down in many states with a single word from the owners of those leases. What are our leaders thinking of?

You got what you wanted, Republican America. Are you happy?

The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here.

RSS Feed PERSONAL Send email to liz at life-as-a-spectator-sport.com Home I'm a mother, grandmother, a computer professional, Democrat, Christian. I welcome politely worded comments and email, my spam filter throws the rest away, so don't bother to flame me WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT' "If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart. THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3 KNITTING BLOGS Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits FINISHED PROJECTS -------FINISHED IN 2006------- Peruvian Cap Tutti-Frutti Socks Shelley's Socks Carol's Socks -------FINISHED IN 2007------- Chain Link Socks Baby Surprise Jacket Valerie & Friend Baby Bonnet Rainbow Baby Socks Girls Pixie Hood Mitred Square Heart Red & White Socks Coffee Cup Pot Holder Nubbins Dishcloth Garterlac Dishcloth Suede Booties Kate's Socks Norwegian Sweet Baby Cap Half Thumbless Mittens Red Mittens for Akkol -------FINISHED IN 2008------- SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE -- Blogs and websites -- Causubon's Book Club Orlov Food Storage Made Easy From the Wilderness In the Wake Listening to Katrina Survival Topics The Modern Homestead The Oil Drum Notes from a Hillside Farm -- Mailing Lists -- 12vdc Power Living on the Land Rainwater Refrigeration Alternatives Old Ways of Living POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES The political sites have moved BOOKS I'M READING How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising ARCHIVES February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002