Iran and Syria
The US moves to confront Iran and Syria | csmonitor.com reports that US Forces have, simultaneously with President Bush's speech, "raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, arresting five diplomats and staff and taking computers and files...The raid, and a buildup of US warships in the Persian Gulf..."
This reads like a dangerous precursor to American forces waging an undeclared war with Iran.
Where the Iraq Study Group recommended that America talk with Iran and Syria, President Bush appears to have heard appeasement. Bush's reaction reveals he thinks Iran has already taken acts of war by essentially sending troops into Iraq. The diplomatic seizures appear extraordinary but Bush is desperate to prove Iran Government involvement or at least complicity in acts of war against America. As they are computers, it is inconclusive as evidence, but far too useful as intelligence for Iran to shrug about it.
This action indicates a very disturbing trend. Bush has made a Shiite country out of Iraq, now he wants to inflame the war against the Shiite/Sadrist forces of the South that support the seat of power by executing Sunni's, probably the ones they think were in power previously.
He how sees this and is taking his war to the forces of stability rather the the culprits who are the Sunni dominated Baathists army that scattered into the suburbs about the time George Bush was theatrically declaring US victory all those dark years ago.
George Bush has abused democracy before. This time it could be very dangerous to the US economy if his gamble does not pay off. If he does restore democracy to Iraq by sending in another 22000 young men to face "the enemy", what will he have to do next? As Commander in Chief he would have to take more emergency action. Action against Iran seems premature. Of course they are complicit in supporting the Shiite resistance to the 40 years of American supported domination by a Sunni minority. They were doing the right thing, by anyone's standards. To stop the Sadrist death squads requires an act of grace that makes the entire country agree to the rule of law. Continued genocidal war is not solving it. It is worse than partitioning the country to enable peaceful communities to thrive.
This reads like a dangerous precursor to American forces waging an undeclared war with Iran.
Where the Iraq Study Group recommended that America talk with Iran and Syria, President Bush appears to have heard appeasement. Bush's reaction reveals he thinks Iran has already taken acts of war by essentially sending troops into Iraq. The diplomatic seizures appear extraordinary but Bush is desperate to prove Iran Government involvement or at least complicity in acts of war against America. As they are computers, it is inconclusive as evidence, but far too useful as intelligence for Iran to shrug about it.
This action indicates a very disturbing trend. Bush has made a Shiite country out of Iraq, now he wants to inflame the war against the Shiite/Sadrist forces of the South that support the seat of power by executing Sunni's, probably the ones they think were in power previously.
He how sees this and is taking his war to the forces of stability rather the the culprits who are the Sunni dominated Baathists army that scattered into the suburbs about the time George Bush was theatrically declaring US victory all those dark years ago.
George Bush has abused democracy before. This time it could be very dangerous to the US economy if his gamble does not pay off. If he does restore democracy to Iraq by sending in another 22000 young men to face "the enemy", what will he have to do next? As Commander in Chief he would have to take more emergency action. Action against Iran seems premature. Of course they are complicit in supporting the Shiite resistance to the 40 years of American supported domination by a Sunni minority. They were doing the right thing, by anyone's standards. To stop the Sadrist death squads requires an act of grace that makes the entire country agree to the rule of law. Continued genocidal war is not solving it. It is worse than partitioning the country to enable peaceful communities to thrive.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Home