-
June 13, 2007 7:51 AM
Lieberman Takes Our Call to Action Too Literally
Who would win in a fight, General Wesley Clark or Senator Joe Lieberman? We may get to find out if the General's recent public lashings continue. In response to Lieberman's comments about military options with regard to Iraq, the former Supreme Allied Commander wrote on the Huffington Post:
This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don't need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.
Working Assets members have been asking Congress not to allow another pre-emptive war, despite the Bush/Cheney saber-rattling in that region.
But maybe Lieberman's problem is not that he ignored Working Assets...maybe he listened to us too literally. You see, we sent the message to Congress, "Only YOU Can Authorize War on Iran"...meaning "Don't Let Bush Declare War."
Well, Lieberman must have thought we wanted him to authorize the war...so, it's sort of our bad. Thanks, General Clark, for helping set him straight.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
Recent CREDO Blog entries
-
This Modern World
-
November 11, 2009 -
November 5, 2009 -
October 29, 2009 -
October 22, 2009 -
October 15, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
The general considers Lieberman’s speech to be irresponsible. Certainly, from a military standpoint, it is downright irrational. It would give the Iranians the excuse they need to mobilize their Shi’ite allies in Iraq and even invade with their own army overtly or covertly. The supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad is tenuous and could certainly be disrupted. From there, it doesn’t take a military expert to see a major defeat on the horizon. Military history is full of such surprising defeats at the hands of apparently backward barbarians, from Varus in Teutoburg forest to the Soviets in Afghanistan (and us in Vietnam, where too many of my classmates from The Citadel died).
BUT, all is not military. Bush may be an idiot and Lieberman may be a snake, but they’re advised by very rational people. The question we need to ask is: What is their motivation?
Although it seems outlandish, perhaps such rational people are even looking for a military defeat. Politically, the right always comes out ahead in such instances. Could this be an attempt to consolidate political power at home? And, of course, there’s the Corporate State (read Mussolini sometime, and then look at what’s going on here). The arms manufacturing industry would have to gear up to WWII levels for the ensuing conflagration. Talk about good for business!
Of course, it may not be a case of seeking a disaster at all, but a complete lack of knowledge of military science by politicians with other ends entirely (and a lack of spine among the top commanders in informing them). Whatever the motivation is for the current trend, however, we really need to stop limiting ourselves to the “irrational” and start looking for the “rational.” That’s where we’ll find the real reasons for Lieberman’s pronouncements.
Join the Discussion