Tuesday, February 13, 2007
try to convince the world he has no intention of attacking Iran?
Allowing that there are some people who argue that the threat of force can actually increase the likelihood that military force will be used in a given conflict, more often than not over the years we've seen that taking force off the table (or, in some cases, not putting it on the table in the first place) has led to more trouble down the road.
And especially in a case such as with Iran, where we have precious little short of force with which to threaten them and where they see us as operating from a position of weakness and unwilling to use force to accomplish our goals, why would Bush want to confirm that for them? To paraphrase the old expression, wouldn't it be better for Bush to have kept quiet and left the Iranians at least a bit worried than to have said what he did and removed any doubt that he lacks the guts to use the military?
To me, this is yet another (sad) example of Bush just not having his act together. He has his press secretary announce that stopping Iran's support for the insurgency is critical. He himself has announced that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. And then he goes and takes the ultimate big stick off the table.
And what does he hope to accomplish by this? What is so important about convincing the 'world' that he has no plans to attack Iran? Does he think that this is going to lead to the 'world' putting pressure on Iran to stop their support for the insurgency and fighting in Iraq? Does he think Iran is going to be so impressed by his restraint that they're going to stop on their own?
What a fool. Unfortunately, his foolishness is going to lead (as it has led) to more Americans being killed.... all because he has no clue.
How many more days until he leaves office?