Israel Fingers the Big Red Button
Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.
There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.
In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.
But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?
On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves.
Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits,"
upsetting both Iran and Iraq.
On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?
An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?
I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.
What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.
EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out
some additional info about Iran.
Labels: afghanistan, iran, iraq, israel, nukes
Letters from the Front, Part Deux
A few days ago I posted a blog
article about letters written to America by soldiers deployed to Iraq. Foolishly, I forgot that Americans aren't the only "fighters" writing letters, and today the Pentagon decided to help fill that gap.
The Pentagon has released
portions of a
letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If you don't follow the war on terror, this would be approximately equivalent to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, writing a letter to General Abazaid, the commander of US Forces in the Middle East -- and having our enemies obtain a copy of the letter. I'll break down some key points here:
- Zawahiri warns that things are not good in Afghanistan. He tells Zarqawi that they have been defeated, and are hiding to avoid capture. Their communications and funding have been cut off. Desperately, he pleas for Zarqawi to send money to him. Fewer than half of Americans think we can win this war, but our enemy's leadership seems to think w
e can.
- He warns Zarqawi that the violence he is causing, especially beheadings and other "terror" attacks, will ultimately serve to turn the population against him. Gruesome images like the one to the right only serve to make Iraqis realize that Al Qaeda is not "on their side." While I cannot find good evidence of this on CNN.com or Fox News, I will tell you that conversations with friends in Iraq back this statement up. The message from Iraqis to our soldiers: Help us get rid of this menace!
- Expressing optimism that somehow Al Qaeda could force America to abandon Iraq, Zawahiri implored Zarqawi to not end the fight there. Instead, he urges him to push out into other countries, expanding the war until it encompasses the entire world. While some may be deluded into thinking that pulling out means peace, it is clear that Al Qaeda's plan is "Iraq first, then the world." Appeasement didn't work with the Nazi's, and it won't work now.
Captain Ed and
Discerning Texan both have good blog entries about this letter as well, kudos to 'em for beating me to the punch.
"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us."
Labels: afghanistan, iraq, media, terrorism
Nervous Rodent's Manifesto
Last updated: 29 September 2005I figure everyone has the right to know where a blogger is coming from, so I'm posting a manifesto of sorts. This isn't all-encompassing, but it should serve to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from politically.
- The government that governs best, governs least. -- Thomas Jefferson
- Every service provided by the government is paid for out of the coffers of American wealth, e.g., taxes. To endorse spending is to postulate that the government can get more productivity from the wealth than private citizens, corporations, or organizations.
- It is not a crime that hurts none. All laws should exist to protect innocents; any law that does not is superfluous.
- The economy knows best. Only in the most extreme cases should the government interfere with the free working of the economy. Having said that, many problems are caused by government interference, and may require additional action to correct.
- All people have equal rights, and should be treated equally under the law. Giving privledges to one group over another to correct perceived "disadvantages" is insulting and degrading.
- It is better to fight for your country on foreign soil than at home. Like all rational people, I oppose war on principle. But I would rather fight in Iraq and Afghanistan than Maryland and Virginia.
- There is nothing wrong with religion. Except that no government should ever invoke it, for any reason. Government, by definition, has power over people, and the combination is dangerous in the extreme.
- All citizens have the right to argue and petition for change. Our Constitution has an amendment procedure for a reason. Violent action against a government is only justified against governments that do not, and it is especially justified in that situation.
- Debate and discourse of individuals is preferable to news and editorials dictated by major corporations.
- Opinions change, including mine. This manifesto may change with time. That's because I will, too.
The images at the bottom give a bit of a clue. They are courtesy of the
OkCupid politics test. Feel free to take the test, and post your results as a comment so I can see what my readership is like. I'm 71% socially liberal, and 83% economically permissive. The first graph tells me I'm a Libertarian, the second tells me I'm similar to Jefferson, and the third tells me that people who scored similar results to me were split between Bush and Kerry in the last election.
Thanks to
Dave's Not Here for pointing me to this test.
Labels: afghanistan, church, iraq, nanny state, personal freedoms, privacy, racism, state's rights, taxes
I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.
