April 10, 2006

War War sorta like Jaw Jaw

What's really going on is a bit more complicated than that. People on the Left are only forced into doing violent things if events push them into it. Events, usually, that they themselves helped set up.

Their fears are thus simply that the Republicans are like them, that they go and create war situations without consideration of the consequences in a wise and patient manner. That scares Democrats because the Democrats don't want the Republicans to get war credit and gain popularity.

Thus, having projected their fears and doubts unto the villainous Republicans, they are free to expound upon what they believe to be the wrong strategy. The wrong strategy being, what they believe to be wrong. This is contrasted with the right strategy, which in most Democratic cases is the strategy that leads directly to war.

The diplomacy of the Left has done more to cause gigantic wars than anything in the history of the world for the past few centuries. It happened in WWII, it happened in Vietnam and the Cold War, and it is happening now.

This is an attempt to descredit any nuclear related strategy of deterence or threats or prevention. By setting the agenda in a way, by setting the words which will be used to describe nuclear deterence, the Left corrupts a valid tool of shotgun diplomacy and lowers the chances that diplomacy will succede in its design at stopping wars.

Because this is a descrediting campaign, and you can learn the labels pretty well by paying attention to Democrats, it is based upon the proof of the negative. Most of the time when the Democrats call subject A, label B, subject A is really under label A, not B. The proof of the negative is simply that Bush doesn't believe in peace through superior firepower, although he is Jacksonian in the belief that if he engages in a military action that he should finish it through winning. But Bush is nowhere close to the shot gun diplomacy of Teddy Roosevelt.

Which is the problem. Because Bush doesn't consider using nuclear weapons as a psychological, diplomatic, and "deal" making weapon, Bush will not set the agenda in terms of diplomacy or nuclear weapons. This allows the propaganda squad like Hersh, to set it instead, with words and phrases that they choose. It is as if you agreed to fight someone in a location of their choosing. It is obviously going to be a location where he will be able to ambush you to his advantage.

Most Pundits on TV, except Tancredo, say that using nukes is "nuts".

And these are the people we expect to come up with a workable diplomatic solution so more soldiers lives aren't wasted on a struggle better solved peaceably?

They don't even give one iota to the idea. ANd because they do not, the stilleto of war will carve their kidneys from the cavities of their useless bodies.

The predictions are easy to make. It isn't Republicans that are war mongers. Democrats are war mongers. From the Democrats in the South in the Civil War, to Roosevelt and Truman in WWII. Democrats are populists by nature, and populists are easily fired up by the war cry of the public. Because they are very connected to populist sentiment, they find it easier to stoke and manipulate than would otherwise be. If the public wants war, the Democrats aren't going to stand in their way. If the public is against war, Democrats like Roosevelt will lie about not wanting war, but in reality Roosevelt is just waiting for the right time to bring us in. Or get someone else to bring us in.

What this all means, basically is, that there are two predictable outcomes to a Democratic foreign policy. War. Or, war. The first path, War, comes about because war is popular and power can be obtained by riding the tiger of war fury. I.E. If Gore was President on 9/11 and he invaded Afghanistan, that is War. The second alternative war, little w, happens because of appeasement. When the public does not want war and neither does the Democrats (i.e. Britain/France in WWII), their foreign policy of appeasement produces war.

So in the end, a Democrat will give you war or War. There's really no other alternative. They can hold it off, like Jimmy Carter, but eventually the consequences to their actions will snow ball. Instead of a big capital War, they get a series of little wars, sitzkrieg wars with their appeasement, along the way. And eventually it blows up, but since it will be in someone else's faces, people like Democratic Carter don't really care.

Either the Democratic party favors war and stokes the public into it, American Civil War, or the Democratic party appeases the enemy and this produces war further down the line (Roosevelt appeasement of Stalin through ceding of territories).

Vietnam was started by the Democratic party, and it was lost by the Democratic party. The Democratic war machine is very good at firing up the public for war, but the Democrats aren't very good at war.

Diplomacy with Iran will fail because Bush is neither good at firing up the public for war and keeping us stoked in it, nor is Bush actually in favor of more wars himself. And without that kind of Democratic ruthlessness, the Iranians are correct to wait him out. So long as Bush is in office, Iran knows that they can stall for time as Saddam did, and that if they stall long enough they will have at least one nuke in which to use to protect themselves from any future Presidents bent on starting up a personal war.

The more the Democrats accuse Bush of certain things I know is not true of Bush, the more I understand that the Democrats are just saying that they, the Democrats, are guilty of all the things they accuse their enemies of. This in addition to thi historical account. Whenever you hear Democrats accuse Bush of being A, the most likely scenario is that Bush is guilty of being the exact opposite. Obviously the Democrats can't be that stupid to accuse their enemy of things he is diametrically lacking, so it has to derive from some other fundamental motivation.

If Bush does these things, he will have a much higher chance to avoid war with Iran.

1. Demonstration nuclear attack on depopulated spots. Additional adjustments, include adding prisoners to be executed to the spot.

2. Threatening and/or giving nuclear weapons technology to the Kurds, North Alliance, or anyone else bordering Iran.

3. Buying Indian support through a tri-lateral alliance of Indian, Pakistani, and American. Bribes and threats, not excluded from consideration.

4. Naval/Air blockade or unrestricted submarine warfare (actual or threatened) upon Iran or Syrian ships.

5. Targeted assassination of islamic leaders in Iran, through local guerrila insurgency efforts. With the demand that Iran backdown on the nuclear front.

6. Forced Annexation of Syrian and Iranian territories, short of full invasion. We can give those territories to our allies, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and India for example as bribes.

7. Arm the Kurdish Alliance with American weapons publicly, and threaten the Turks to back us against Iran or else.

8. Use Special Forces to kidnap and raid high ranking Iranian and Syrian officials and liquidate their bank accounts of all assets and funds. Then use those assets to fund internal guerrila insurgencies, to return Iran and Syria's favor in Iraq. Funneling arms and weapons to Lebanon, to checkmate Syria, is a good idea.

If Bush does all or even any of those things, and there are plenty more Bush has the power to do without going to Congress, the chances for a diplomatic success with Iran increases by orders of magnitudes.

The key to diplomacy as with hostage negotiation, is leverage. Find a high enough lever, and you can move the world. Iran found that lever when they took our embassy hostage, and I have just listed the levers available to be acquired against Iran. If Bush has the guts and the wisdom to use them.

If Bush wanted a war, there would be no need for this showmanship diplomacy. But obviously Bush is serious about this diplomacy game, and if Bush is serious, then he'd better act like it.

I would not recommend inviting the CIA into these operations, however. They are a danger. Far better if Bush trusted only the SF community and regular Army. The organization you hear the LEAST about on television, is the organization you use for your foreign policy, covert and otherwise.

I'm pretty sure Bush knows how to play poker. This isn't poker. You don't get second chances, your money isn't calculated by the average of 10 pots or something like that.

Bush holds all the cards, he has most of the money. All Bush has. to. do. is. to. raise.

If Bush doesn't raise the stakes, Iran will. In the end, same difference. Only how many people get to die for it, will differ by the end.

I don't know why people are worried about the oil. If Bush gave the say so, we could steal Iran's entire oil infrastructure from them at a fraction of the cost of OIF. I suppose I can see why we would be worried, because we know Bush won't give the say so... but presumably Bush might do it.

Pirates seize oil tankers all the time in Indonesian waters. It ain't like the US Navy can't do the same if we wanted to.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home