When one reads about discussions going on at the White House between State Department lifers and supposed Hawks within the Cheney circle and one of the contentious issues is that:
the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.”
One has to wonder where do these “foggy bottom” people have their heads? I hear or read the moniker “foggy bottom,” and think; foggy, unclear and bottom. I see concerns like the ones they have there and think, ‘yes your thinking us unclear and you are somewhere near the bottom or that is where you brains are.’
A “greater consideration of military strikes,” is a concern? Why would a “consideration” be so offensive? Outsourcing the Iranian peaceful nuke talks to the EU-3 plus has resulted in bupkis; likewise our talks with
So, no “options” are off the table, but just to be clear, certain “considerations” are.
Since its inception, the Bush Doctrine of “Pre-emptive strikes” has not gotten much good press. This can certainly be understood, especially in an age where “intelligence” is not all it’s cracked up to be. If one stops and thinks about it though; when has it ever? Well for one, we hear that it really stank the place up to be in the run-up to the
Pre-emption is also an offensive tactic rather than defensive, so it follows that a relatively peaceful nation such as the U.S. (according to BUs “intelligence” reports many disagree) have trouble settling its stomach on a new tack (many thanks Dave; see comment to Iran Strategy being Debated at White House).
Many “hawks” outside VP Cheney’s office by the way, also would like greater consideration of a “military option” on the table as well. Not just for the sake of “killing them over there,” as everyone knows how much we “hawks” love other people dying for us; but because without it, all options are not options, which makes the discussions in question pretty fruitless when you consider the past few years success rate with Iran.
We won’t even threaten it because we don’t want to be seen as a belligerent, nor do we want to approach “incendiary rhetoric” as in the words of Alan Colmes, “they're (Iran) going to feel they've got to defend themselves if they think an attack is imminent and people...”
So, the best bet is to do as little as possible. Continue the “diplomatic” approach, which no longer includes anything military and wait. Wait for what? Wait for the tide to change like Neville “Henry Strange” Chamberlain did. Or, as Seth Leibsohn suggests this morning in “Land for Peace….or land in pieces?” That “where once a democratic state “occupied”
Leibsohn also points out the obvious that oddly is not obvious enough; “a democracy showing weakness where terrorists thrive is a sure recipe for disaster if only one condition is met: Cede land to the terrorists and encourage the democracy to withdraw.”
We hope for a clean cut war, unlike what we have in
Hopefully we won’t wait until it’s too late; we might though.
"Iran & the Mideast"
Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, On the Horizon, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Colloquium, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.