Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Remember that idiot Ralph Nader who said during a recent presidential campaign there wasn’t a lick of difference between the Republicans and Democrats? This apparently resonated for just enough Democrats that they helped send George Bush to the White House and Al Gore into moviemaking. I knew at the time that Nader was a self-deluded egomaniac.

But this article by Chris Hedges about what he believes is impending war with Iran really brings the imbecility of Nader’s statement home (thanks to Billmon for featuring this at his blog):

U.S.S. Eisenhower to Straits of Hormuz–is Ike rolling in his grave?

The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

War with Iran — a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East — is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks.

…This war will be different. It will be catastrophic.

…Those in Washington who advocate this war, knowing as little about the limitations and chaos of war as they do about the Middle East, believe they can hit about 1,000 sites inside Iran to wipe out nuclear production and cripple the 850,000-man Iranian army. The disaster in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli air campaign not only failed to break Hezbollah but united most Lebanese behind the militant group, is dismissed. These ideologues, after all, do not live in a reality-based universe. The massive Israeli bombing of Lebanon failed to pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 70 million people? As retired General Wesley K. Clark and others have pointed out, once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters, cruise missiles and iron fragmentation bombs on Iran this is the choice that must be faced — either sending American forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war or walking away in humiliation.

No difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Yeah, right.

Anyone besides me appreciate the irony of sending an aircraft carrier named for Dwight Eisenhower to fight the next neocon military adventure? Ike was THE president who understood what it meant to send boys into battle to die; who understood and fought against military adventurism along with the military-industrial complex. I’m sure that the Eisenhower grandchildren are mortified about by this development.

Hedges points out that the country most likely, after the U.S. and Iran, to be most harmed by such a war would be Israel:

The country, however, that will pay the biggest price will be Israel. And the sad irony is that those planning this war think of themselves as allies of the Jewish state. A conflagration of this magnitude could see Israel drawn back in Lebanon and sucked into a regional war, one that would over time spell the final chapter in the Zionist experiment in the Middle East. The Israelis aptly call their nuclear program “the Samson option.” The Biblical Samson ripped down the pillars of the temple and killed everyone around him, along with himself.

…These may be some of the last few weeks or months in which to enjoy what is left of our beleaguered, dying republic and way of life.

Alarmist? Certainly. Overstated? Perhaps. Unbelievable? If you find this scenario entirely incredible you were probably one of the ones (as I was for a week or two) who believed George Bush when he said after the 200 election that he would “govern from the center.” We never thought to ask “from the center of what?” The center of the neocon universe would have been more accurate description of what actually happened.

My only hope is that we will come out to vote in our masses and send the Republicans packing in November. With a majority in at least one House of Congress, is it too much to ask–or dare I say expect–some level of spine and opposition to such war mania?

I also think that North Korea’s nuclear test complicates this scenario somewhat. Hopefully, someone in the White House is worried about taking on one wannabe nuclear power when another already has nukes and would love nothing more than to make mischief for us if we go to war against the wannabes. But no one ever went wrong overestimating George Bush’s willingness to plunge headfirst into the maelstrom.

Billmon is writing some of the most incisive analysis of the Lebanon conflict in the entire blogosphere. He’s outrageously cynical (which is unfortunately perfectly warranted), but brilliantly so. Tonight’s post, The War Party, is no exception. It covers so much ground that it’s hard to summarize briefly.

Suffice to say, he begins with Ned Lamont’s senate campaign and the presumed demise of Joe Lieberman’s political career. But he warns that while Lamont is against one war, he’s not against every war. In other words, Lamont has hitched himself to the Aipac wagon just as securely as Lieberman. Lamont will not dare take a critical view of Israel’s Lebanon war and any other war that might derive from it. So to those who plan on rejoicing when Lamont wins, saying it presages the Party coming to its senses regarding the Iraq war and other possible U.S. military misadventures, Billmon says “not so fast.”

Yes, Billmon is one of those who believes a U.S. war with Iran is not only likely, but nigh unto inevitable. In losing the Lebanon war, Israel has practically forced the U.S. to intervene against Iran. Billmon notes the very real possibility that in the event of Iraqi civil war that Iran could become the dominant outside influence there much like Syria was in Lebanon until recently. This would enable Iran to provoke even more mischief in Lebanon than it currently can since it would have practically an open border conduit from Iraq to Syria and thence to Lebanon. He believes that not only Israel, but the U.S. will find this development intolerable and go to war to roll Iranian dominance back. Billmon also throws out some deeply depressing figures about how many casualties a nuclear strike against Iran might generate.

In calling the post The War Party, he’s referring not the Republicans as you might expect, but to the Democrats. He believes that the party we hold so dear (hmmm) will go along with a war with Iran because it’s just too politically costly to oppose one. As proof, he points to the Democrats rollover on the Iraq war. Though we might like to believe that the Dems learned their lesson in not opposing Iraq, Billmon says essentially: never overestimate the Democratic party’s capacity to delude itself when it comes to national security and war.

It’s most depressing stuff, but so absolutely compelling, lucid and brilliantly argued as to be mandatory reading I’m afraid. As I read posts of his like this I find myself alternating between feelings of pleasure at the breathtaking sweep of his writing and argument; and feelings of horror at the vision of a potential World War III emanating from the Mideast conflict.

Memorable Quote of the Night Award goes to Billmon for this keeper:

All in all, looking at how the war has progressed so far, I would say the Olmert government has come down with a stunning case of the reverse Midas touch: everything it touches turns to shit.

This too is quite mordantly funny:

How many more innocent people die between now and then [when the war ends] is something Shrub and Ms. Rice will eventually have to take up with St. Peter — and then with the other fellow.

Billmon is one of the bitterest satirists around. I think he’s the blogging equivalent of Jonathan Swift. It’s a pleasure to share a country with him.