Iran and Iraq

Did you know that 65,000 Iraqis have had to leave their homes due to the current civil war between the Shias and the Sunnis? And over 1300 people have died in the violence surrounding it? How much thought did the American government give to this possibility? Was a fraction of a second spent considering how our invasion would manage the differing factions that simply do not exist in the US? Sure doesn't look like it.

And having US in Iraq has worked out so well that we're considering doing it all over again in Iran. OK. We know that, this time around, we are dealing with some approaching WMD. You got your uranium. You got your nation claiming it's entered the nuclear (that's nucular to our President) age.

And we need to attack Iran because why? Because Iran is run by bad guys, of course. And it is our job to rid the world of bad guy leaders. Tapped has a nice squib on this. Yet I don't think it goes far enough. There are plenty of other bad guys leaders out there about whom we do nothing. Nada. Zip.

For instance, seems like we've got some bad guy leaders down in Dafur. And, really, we don't want to do squat for those people. Is it because they have black skin? Don't think so. When you examine motives in the US, it's all about money and power, ladies and germs. They don't have oil in Dafur. Therefore, we don't care about genocide in Dafur. We don't care about janjaweed in Dafur. Oh, we'll throw a few million here and there, make appropriate sounding noises. But when it comes right down to it, we're going to let them all die down there. Then Hollywood can make movies about it that makes us all cry.

But we care deeply about Iran. Because there's oil in them thar hills. Black gold. Arabic Tea. The region's a gas can, and we want to control every little square inch of it. We understand nothing of Shiites and Shia and Kurds and martyrs. And we don't give a damn about understanding it. All we want is control over the region sufficient to keep the oil flowing. The people who live there be damned.

And who would be leading the latest charge into Oil Land? Rumsfeld, who is currently being called upon by a group of retired generals to step down immediately due to his incredibly poor management of the Iraq War. I confess to not having a military background. But this seems pretty incredible and meaningful to me, given the limited amount I know. I know that the military prizes respect for authority above all. I know that the military prizes obedience above all. Attacking Rumsfeld, after numerous private conversations among numerous generals, seems an extraordinary step that would only be taken if the consequences of not doing so were deadly serious.

And listen to what these generals have to say:

"(Rumsfeld is) incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically."

"I think we need a fresh start . . . . We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

"(Rumsfeld and his advisers have) made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict."

Can't think of anyone better suited to lead a war into Iran, can you? A war that will leave thousands more dead and homeless so that Enron can have another banner year of sales.

Later,
Liz