[Peace-discuss] Iran scare

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Good point about the current admin's rationality -- goal was permanent presence and control of the oil, and that mission is almost accomplished (unless the Iraqi leaders refuse to allow any or all of this). Hey, didn't congress say -- and Bush agree -- that there would be NO permanent bases? Of course that was a couple of years ago, and this is now...
 --Jenifer

--- On Wed, 7/16/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iran scare
To: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 12:57 AM

[1] A lame-duck president has limited resources to compel actions, particularly 
military actions, that powerful subordinates oppose.  (Kissinger arranged for 
Nixon's military orders to be ignored in his final days.)  Suppose instead
of 
carrying out an order to attack Iran, flag officers (and/or a defense
secretary) 
resign -- and say why.  Even the threat of that might deter an attack.

[2] It's not clear which candidate an Iran attack would help (as they well 
know).  Note the new ABC/WP poll that already puts McCain ahead of Obama as 
CINC. An attack might lower rather than raise that percentage. OTOH Obama has 
always approved of an attack on Iran under certain circumstances.

[3] This administration has throughout its history been quite rational -- in
the 
sense of fitting means to ends -- in pursuit of its vicious goals.  It's
only 
clear irrationality -- the colossal botch of the occupation -- was the almost 
exclusive responsibility of the DOD troika, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith
("the 
stupidest fucking guy in the universe," acc. to Gen Franks), and they were

dismissed for it.

But of course prediction in these matters is nearly impossible.  All we can do 
is give as good an account as possible of what the current situation is.  This 
article seems to me to do a better job of that than most.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> The only flies in the ointment of this analysis is that 1) Bush is still 
> the Commander in Chief of the armed forces--and they will do his 
> bidding, 2) an election is coming up in which a military adventure could 
> swing the popular vote to McCain, and 3) that rationality is not the 
> main attribute of the Cheney-Bush gang.
> 
> What may determine what will happen is the assessment by the military 
> and other experts of what Iran can and will do after it is attacked. I 
> don't think this is clear.
> 
> I believe one should expect the worst, and fight like hell to avert it. 
> In that sense, I don't think this piece is very helpful. --mkb
> 
> 
> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:35 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> [This seems about right.  One might handicap the horses (or parts 
>> thereof) a bit differently, and it might be worthwhile to advert to 
>> the general US policy (shared by both parties), but as far as they go 
>> both the analysis and the exhortation seem generally sound. --CGE]
>>
>>     Attack On Iran On The Way? Uh, Maybe Not...
>>     Jul 15, 2008
>>     By Bill Fletcher, Jr., and Dennis O'Neil
>> ...

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080716/20c41bae/attachment.htm