Is it just me, or is it getting weird around here?
Happy New Year! Yes, I know. It is 1 March. Unfortunately, this is the first post of 2007. I am a regrettable and loathsome person, just ask my family. As the cognoscenti say, "My bad" (stifle disgusted shiver).
My theme today is weirdness. I say weirdness because odd stuff is happening in the world and I am beginning to wonder if I am slowly going insane. First of all, the surge. The best way to win the War in Iraq is not to pay any attention to the military, the diplomats, America's foreign allies, or the Iraq Study Group. The best way is to send more men and gradually increase the pressure on the insurgents. Then pull out. Sort of like the British Army did mere moments after the surge was begun. Am I alone in thinking that this is a really bad idea which makes no sense at all?
The next thing that concerns me is Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, called "The Redirection". This argues, from fairly well-placed (and presumably, baffled) sources, that the United States and Saudi Arabia have been quietly changing their policy in the Middle and Near East. The new policy is to support Sunni extremists against Shiite extremists. So far so good. These Sunni extremists have, apparently, enjoyed the active support of Saudi Arabia for years against Shiite Iran, Shiite Hezbollah, Shiite Syria and Shiite militants in Iraq. The object of the strategy is to destablize Iran and Hezbollah. Why? Because Iran has filled the vacuum created by the destablization of Iraq, and because Hezbollah defeated the Israeli Defence Forces in southern Lebanon last summer. Apparently, there are significant numbers of extremist Sunnis throughout the Middle and Near East who would like nothing better than to check This Shiite ascendancy. According to Hersh, the most cogent argument in favour of supporting Sunnis against Shiites is that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Now, I am all in favour of defeating radical, militant Islam. For that matter, I am all in favour of defeating radical, militant Christianity, too. My rationale is that radical, militant religious types are inherently dangerous, no matter what make and model they may be. However, you will recall that Osama Bin Laden (who that and where he?) is a Sunni extremist. The Taliban are Sunni extremists. The men who brought us the September 11th attacks were Sunni extremists. More American soldiers in Iraq have been killed by Sunni extremists than have been killed by Shiite extremists, apparently by an order of magnitude, according to Hersh. Have we come full circle, or am I going crazy?
Still weirder yet, the junta in the Bush Administration led by Vice-President Cheney is determined to eliminate Iran before the next presidential election. I am not quite clear why, since Saudi Arabia has been far more active in supporting terrorism than Iran ever was and Cheney probably owns a condo in Riyadh. However, it seems to be an article of faith for Cheney that Iran is run by carpet-chewing Shiite madmen who will not rest until the United States is forcibly converted to Islam or wiped from the Earth, or both if need be. As a veteran of the Cold War, I have to say that the threat of forcible conversion to Shiite Islam does not keep me awake at night quite the same way as did Soviet ballistic missiles, but I guess you take your enemies where you can find them.
Anyway, back to my point. Various sources in the American media have failed to acknowledge that the Bush administration has not shied away from using nuclear weapons in this hotly-anticipated war with Iran. That is nuclear weapons, ie. the kind we used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Come to think of it, that was the last time nuclear weapons were intentionally used on people.
Now a few years ago, India and Pakistan were competing with each other to build ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. This was widely considered to be a bad thing, not least because the idea of these two nations fighting each other with nuclear weapons seemed about as wise as fighting a flamethrower battle in a gunpowder factory. Still more recently, North Korea announced its intention to actively develop nuclear weapons. This was widely considered to be a bad thing, not least because North Korea has pretty much always been weird and scary. The point was, the very idea of using nuclear weapons was so horrible, we did not want countries like these even owning nuclear weapons, no less using them. So what on Earth are Bush and Cheney doing saying that they would use nuclear weapons against Iran, for Pete's sake?
Their rationale is the following syllogism: Firstly, Iran is supplying small-scale explosive devices to Shiite insurgents in Iraq to use in blowing up National Guardsmen from Ohio. Secondly, Iran is building nuclear weapons. Consequently, Iran will soon be supply nuclear weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq to use in blowing up National Guardsmen from Ohio.
Leaving aside when Iran will have a nuclear warhead ready (sometime between "a few years from now" and never), does anyone else see the logical fallacy here? If you were the President of Iran and you had an arsenal of nuclear warheads, would you be handing them out to anybody who dropped in, like candy on Hallowe'en? Not if you were sane.
Iran is developing nuclear weapons because its President realizes the only way to keep the United States out of Iran is to threaten massive nuclear retaliation. That is the same reason North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. It is the same reason the United States, France and Britain deployed nuclear weapons in Western Europe in the face of the Warsaw Pact. It is deterrence, and it is the result of one country fearing that another country is way too aggressive. Kind of like the United States these past six years.
My theme today is weirdness. I say weirdness because odd stuff is happening in the world and I am beginning to wonder if I am slowly going insane. First of all, the surge. The best way to win the War in Iraq is not to pay any attention to the military, the diplomats, America's foreign allies, or the Iraq Study Group. The best way is to send more men and gradually increase the pressure on the insurgents. Then pull out. Sort of like the British Army did mere moments after the surge was begun. Am I alone in thinking that this is a really bad idea which makes no sense at all?
The next thing that concerns me is Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, called "The Redirection". This argues, from fairly well-placed (and presumably, baffled) sources, that the United States and Saudi Arabia have been quietly changing their policy in the Middle and Near East. The new policy is to support Sunni extremists against Shiite extremists. So far so good. These Sunni extremists have, apparently, enjoyed the active support of Saudi Arabia for years against Shiite Iran, Shiite Hezbollah, Shiite Syria and Shiite militants in Iraq. The object of the strategy is to destablize Iran and Hezbollah. Why? Because Iran has filled the vacuum created by the destablization of Iraq, and because Hezbollah defeated the Israeli Defence Forces in southern Lebanon last summer. Apparently, there are significant numbers of extremist Sunnis throughout the Middle and Near East who would like nothing better than to check This Shiite ascendancy. According to Hersh, the most cogent argument in favour of supporting Sunnis against Shiites is that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Now, I am all in favour of defeating radical, militant Islam. For that matter, I am all in favour of defeating radical, militant Christianity, too. My rationale is that radical, militant religious types are inherently dangerous, no matter what make and model they may be. However, you will recall that Osama Bin Laden (who that and where he?) is a Sunni extremist. The Taliban are Sunni extremists. The men who brought us the September 11th attacks were Sunni extremists. More American soldiers in Iraq have been killed by Sunni extremists than have been killed by Shiite extremists, apparently by an order of magnitude, according to Hersh. Have we come full circle, or am I going crazy?
Still weirder yet, the junta in the Bush Administration led by Vice-President Cheney is determined to eliminate Iran before the next presidential election. I am not quite clear why, since Saudi Arabia has been far more active in supporting terrorism than Iran ever was and Cheney probably owns a condo in Riyadh. However, it seems to be an article of faith for Cheney that Iran is run by carpet-chewing Shiite madmen who will not rest until the United States is forcibly converted to Islam or wiped from the Earth, or both if need be. As a veteran of the Cold War, I have to say that the threat of forcible conversion to Shiite Islam does not keep me awake at night quite the same way as did Soviet ballistic missiles, but I guess you take your enemies where you can find them.
Anyway, back to my point. Various sources in the American media have failed to acknowledge that the Bush administration has not shied away from using nuclear weapons in this hotly-anticipated war with Iran. That is nuclear weapons, ie. the kind we used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Come to think of it, that was the last time nuclear weapons were intentionally used on people.
Now a few years ago, India and Pakistan were competing with each other to build ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. This was widely considered to be a bad thing, not least because the idea of these two nations fighting each other with nuclear weapons seemed about as wise as fighting a flamethrower battle in a gunpowder factory. Still more recently, North Korea announced its intention to actively develop nuclear weapons. This was widely considered to be a bad thing, not least because North Korea has pretty much always been weird and scary. The point was, the very idea of using nuclear weapons was so horrible, we did not want countries like these even owning nuclear weapons, no less using them. So what on Earth are Bush and Cheney doing saying that they would use nuclear weapons against Iran, for Pete's sake?
Their rationale is the following syllogism: Firstly, Iran is supplying small-scale explosive devices to Shiite insurgents in Iraq to use in blowing up National Guardsmen from Ohio. Secondly, Iran is building nuclear weapons. Consequently, Iran will soon be supply nuclear weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq to use in blowing up National Guardsmen from Ohio.
Leaving aside when Iran will have a nuclear warhead ready (sometime between "a few years from now" and never), does anyone else see the logical fallacy here? If you were the President of Iran and you had an arsenal of nuclear warheads, would you be handing them out to anybody who dropped in, like candy on Hallowe'en? Not if you were sane.
Iran is developing nuclear weapons because its President realizes the only way to keep the United States out of Iran is to threaten massive nuclear retaliation. That is the same reason North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. It is the same reason the United States, France and Britain deployed nuclear weapons in Western Europe in the face of the Warsaw Pact. It is deterrence, and it is the result of one country fearing that another country is way too aggressive. Kind of like the United States these past six years.
posted by Rob Stewart | 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home