The latest administration talking point is that the Iranian government has authorized the sell of weapons to insurgents in Iraq. What B*sh and his team are likely counting on is that the American public is as ignorant about the religious politics of the area as Mr. B*sh is.
Mr. B*sh likes to frame things as "fer us" or "agin us", so I'll make it simple:
The Iranian government is primarily Shia. The majority in Iraq (Mr. Maliki, et al) are Shia. Our forces insured the election which put Mr. Maliki (as Prime Minister) in power, so the Shia in Iraq are, de facto, our allies. They are "fer us".
Most of the insurgents killing Americans are Sunni, the minority Islamic group which enjoyed power and privilege during Saddam Hussein’s regime. They are "agin us".
If the Iranian government were providing weapons to the Sunni, they would be aiding a force they see as apostate and enemies. If they are providing weapons to the Shia, they are helping to arm our allies.
Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
Many on the left are concerned that this talk about weapons coming from Iran is a replay of the WPM "intelligence" which got us into this mess in the first place. That is, there is a concern that members of the administration are attempting to build a case for invading Iran (or to run covert forays across the border).
Aside from the fact that our military force is stretched to the limit, I share this concern. I am now convinced there is no action too stupid or foolish for this administration to attempt. If B*sh, or any of his minions claimed the sky was blue, I’d be convinced the sky had suddenly turned purple.
It may be time to consider where insurgent groups really are getting their weapons. I have no doubt there’s a healthy black market from a variety of sources, including Iran. However, I’d be willing to make a small wager regarding the source of the majority of those weapons (or the components thereof): weapons depots. The very depots that were not guarded or protected following our invasion of Iraq.
Now, who’s fault is that? Well, Rumsfeld is an obvious choice, but who hired Rumsfeld?
I trust you see where this logic leads. If being the source of these weapons is grounds for attack, then there is only one logical conclusion.
The President, Vice President, and a majority of their advisers (including Ms. Rice) are enemy combatants. I do not suggest that we declare war on these people. There is a fitting and proper place for enemy combatants until the end of hostilities.
Send 'em to Gitmo.
Edited to add:Seems I'm not the only one who had an idea along these lines. See Robert J. Elisberg's satire in the Huffington Post.
Post #1800
1 comment:
Tow quick observations, first regarding the depletion of US ground forces (a very sanitary term for some horrible consequences for young men and women thrust into more combat than seen by any US forces since WW II). In 2002 the US Congress acted on the junta's request to modify the nation's policy regarding first use of nuclear weapons. In the Nuclear Posture Review, endorsed by a strong bi-partisan majority in the Congress, the US abandon the pledge against first use of nuclear weapons. That change was made intentionally and for purpose.
Regarding the propaganda about Iranian supplied arms. There was a photo smeared across TV news reports and print articles of a mortar said to have come from Iran. It did not, in addition to the labeling being in English, not Russian (primary weapons supplier to Iran) or Farsi the mortar round is label as being "81 mm". The US uses 81 mm mortar rounds, the Russians and Iranians use 82 mm. I know it was a long, long time ago - soon to be four years, in fact, but does anyone remember all those ammo dumps that were raided by somebody. Does anybody remember who a major supplier of weapons to Iraq had been prior to 1991? Does anyone suspect it even possible that a junta that would pledge to tell 10 lies before breakfast each day might have planted this US made weapon. Does the "free press" of this nation ask any of these questions?
Post a Comment