On the Contrary

The no-boys never cease to amaze me.  They are against everything.  But in the Iran thing they are for more aggressive language.  It is like they have learned nothing from the last eight years of bellicose behavior.  But what made me laugh until my sides hurt was to hear them call for a U.N. resolution.  These are the boys who think the U.N. is a wimp institution and now they want the United States railing at Iran from the podium.  Thankfully we did not elect John McCain who would be playing right into the Supreme Leader’s hands with these ham handed tactics.  The focus would be on the United States interfering with Iran internal politics instead of on Iran’s government stealing power from the people.  But then why change our tremendously successful bellicose war strategy on display in Iraq removing Al-Qaeda.  Oh, I forgot.  They weren’t there to begin with and neither were the WMD.

Okay, okay, but they are going to protect us from big brother.  Did it ever occur to them that they are big brother?  Weren’t these the guys leading the charge on denying habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping?  Oh, but I digress.  This time they are going to protect us from big government’s involvement in health care.  I guess they are against Medicare, the VA, and Medicaid too.  Oh did I mention that big brother actually pays for their health care?  But the free market will save us from these horrible catastrophes caused by government intervention and according to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee, there will be no public option.

Now unless I am confused, there is no public option now, and the market place has made a muddle of health care.  But with a few rules from Congress and the magic of the market place, SHAZAM, the market place will prevail.  Actually what he is proposing is government welfare for the insurance companies, but that is a post for another day.  These guys are so out of touch with most Americans, but they have close relationships with health industry lobbyists.  I actually thought President Obama made the most eloquent argument asking if government makes such a muddle of everything, why are they afraid to compete with it.  But logic is not having its day with these folks, and fear tactics are everywhere.  Be afraid of the cost.  Be afraid of deficits (brought to us by these very folks).  Be afraid of losing benefits.  If we follow their lead, just where do you think this train wreck is headed.  All of the above.

But I save the best for last and that is hapless Governor Sanford of South Carolina.  According to him, he wanted to be off and alone in Argentina.  It turns out he wanted to be off and “alone” for the same reason a 15-year old boy wants to be off and alone in the bathroom.  In this case he had a lover other than his hand.  Now the talking heads/spin machine are at it telling us what a good man he is to stand up and take his punishment.  If he were such a good man would he have cheated on his wife?  If he really found his life’s love, would there not be a more honorable way to deal with it?  The story is made large by the largeness of his hypocrisy, he the railing protector of the sanctity of marriage.  But now he wants forgiveness though he wasn’t willing to give Bill Clinton forgiveness.  And that is the central theme of all Republican thought.  They can’t imagine they would ever have been in such a situation so they have no empathy for others until it happens to them, and then they are a special case.

And here I want to make a point that is so important to understanding Republicans.  They really do think that the world is just and they are special.  Those that are poor, or ignorant, or disadvantaged are that way because they deserve it.  The market place is the final arbitrator and it rewards those that are just.  Except it didn’t in the last bubble burst and the playing field is clearly not level.  Okay, but what is their fear of government funded (note not run, but funded) health care?  It is the fear that all they believe is wrong.  Just as fundamentalist Christians want to believe the Bible is literal and ignore the thousands of conflicts, Republicans cling to the status quo with all their might.

I have conservative friends who are facing a health care crisis and see the problem, but that does not bleed over into so many of their other faulty held beliefs.  It only does when they have personal experience with the reality most of our citizens actually live.  Then and only then do they get it.  Governor Sanford wants compassion, but he was having none of it when the shoe was on the other foot. The Republican Party justifies very, very selfish behavior.  It does not empathize with less fortunate because to be less fortunate is to be unworthly.   We are going to have to live with conservatives for a long, long time, but isn’t it time Democrats started to ignore them instead of a bipartisan fool’s errands to accommodate false logic?  I would hope so.  They are very little people with no vision of the future, except on looking in the rear view mirror and protecting their own.

In my continuing attempt to answer the questions Anderson Cooper posed to Fareed Zakaria and David Gergen in his “Extreme Challenges, The Next Four Years”, today I would like to focus on Iran.   Notice that we are stuck in the Middle East.  Notice that our focus is on Muslim cultures that are about 12 centuries behind us?  Ever ask yourself if fundamental religious beliefs can spell anything but trouble?  Well of all the countries we have looked at so far, Iran may be the biggest problem and our biggest opportunity.

The question posed to Fareed and David was what is the next President to do about the growing threat in Iran.  What they noted was that nothing so far has worked.  Now on the one hand I can easily understand how a nation like Iran whose has its own uranium would not want to be depended on the rest of the world they don’t trust for their energy rods.  So on that level their argument makes sense.  But we all know that the Iranian government is not just interested in energy, except enough for the big bang, so what to do?

I think that the bottom line is that they are going to acquire a nuclear weapon within the next ten years and the question is what do we do about it?  The neocons and others who have not thought it through want a nice simple surgical attack to take out their nuclear capability.  Problem is there is no such thing as a nice simple surgical attack and we would have to do considerable damage to Iran and its people.  That would have a two-fold effect.  First in a population that is more Western leaning than any other in the Middle East, they would totally rally around their 8th century government.  Any hope we had of the unrest in Iran among the populace liberalizing their culture would go up in smoke.

The second result of such an attack is $30 a gallon gasoline.  Oh how we will cry for the days when it was only $4.80 a gallon.  Additionally terrorist activities around the world would skyrocket as the jihadists used this as a proof that this is a holy war against Muslims and counter attack.  The world economy would go up in smoke.  Iran wouldn’t have nuclear weapons, but other countries seeing this, like North Korea, would get the message that the only way they can defend themselves from such an attack is to get some nuclear weapons and the arms race spirals up.  No this is not a good option.

Gergen and Zareed thought that this could also cripple our next President since he would be seen as losing Iran.  Once again the game here is to recognize realistic outcomes and frame the argument differently.  It is very unlikely that we can prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.  We can continue down the path of sanctions and maybe inject some real negotiations, but in the end I think they will get there.  But if we don’t attack them, they will continue to have more and more unrest among their people as they must make the economic sacrifices to build a bomb.  This could change the government in subtle and slow ways that makes them, even with a nuclear weapon, less of a threat.   Attacking them is to weaken our security because they then will be intent, with the support of their people, on getting such a weapon to defend themselves in the future and exact revenge, something Muslims are really good at.

No I think the wise choice with Iran is to do our best, but in the end when they get the bomb, remind them that we have enough weapons to wipe all of the Middle East off the map and if they choose to use theirs, it will be the last choice they ever make.  It worked well with the Soviets, why not with the Iranians.  Of course one could make the argument that the radical Muslim government is not rational and so mutual assured destruction (MAD) might not work.  But I think the real possibly of ceasing to exist as a people does sink home.

As an aside, this assumes that our guys in the silos can stay awake.  I am sure you saw the story about a missile crew on alert with launch keys for their nuclear tip missiles found  fast asleep.  I have some experience in this area.  No not in silos, but in B-52’s.  Of course in my case our job was to hand deliver our nukes, probably after about 20 hours of hostilities and every one was dead.  But it was the personal touch that mattered.  Either way it is unthinkable and I think it is a perfectly acceptable way to keep rogue nations in check when they inevitably get the bomb.