It has begun…
By Bird Dog over at Tacitus channels Charles Krauthammer:
For me, it’s hard to disagree with Krauthammer and this bleak situation. We need an aggressive policy of regime change for Iran, we need to actively foment democratic revolution in this oppressed country and we need to stop this terrorist nation from building a nuclear bomb or an EMP. So do we take aggressive steps to curtail the Iranian leadership or do we “offer leadership” and call a meeting?
Yep. Iran is a bigger threat to the U.S. right now than Iraq. It was a bigger threat to the U.S. than Iraq in March of 2003. It was a bigger threat to the U.S. than Iraq in September of 2001. Rather than seek to deal with this threat, the Bush administration invaded two countries hostile to Iran and did nothing about Iran’s nuclear program.
I don’t think that the U.S. should invade Iran. Every indications suggests that the Iranian military is vastly more powerful than the Iraqi, and the Iranian regime much more popular. An attack would probably set off a revolt in Iraq, and victory would leave us with Iran, a larger country than Iraq with a population likely to be even more restive. But that’s not important now. What is important is that anyone who thinks that Iran is important enough to merit an invasion should also believe that George W. Bush has done critical damage to the security of the United States. Iran’s strategic position has substantially improved since 9/11/2001 directly because of Bush administration decisions. If you want to invade Iran, you can hardly want W. leading the charge.
Unless, of course, you just believe that “war gives us meaning” and that “American’s are a warlike people” or just really like bombing people, in which case W. is great.