Post a Comment On: Internal Monologue

Greenwald has a post about the Bush administration's war-mongering on Iran, pointing out the rhetorical similarities between their rhetoric on Iran now an their rhetoric on Iraq prior to our invasion there:
It has been obvious for some time now that the Bush administration is signaling to its most extremist supporters that it is committed to waging war against Iran. The President has been giving speeches this week which are almost verbatim copies of the "war-is-inevitable-against-Iraq" speeches he gave at exactly this time four years ago.But in a welcome piece of good news, it appears as though Bush is afraid to ask congress for an AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) on Iran, because he's pretty sure Americans don't want another war:
There is only one reason why the administration and its Congressional loyalists would refuse to have Congress vote on an AUMF for Iran -- because they know Americans don't want a new war. If they thought they could make that case, they would follow the 2002 script which worked so well for them and engineer a vote before the midterm elections, thereby forcing Democrats to vote to authorize the war or be accused of being weak on national security (or, as with Iraq in 2002, both).

But the opposite would happen here. Most Democrats would have no difficulty refusing to authorize a new war, and it is Republicans who would be put in the untenable position of either (a) being perceived as authorizing a whole new war which Americans plainly don't want or (b) opposing the President on national security.He then outlines how the administration is caught between a war-skeptical public and the "out for blood" extremists who form a major portion of its support. He then points out that the Democrats should be exploiting this division more.

Could it be that the "start another war" trick won't work? I believe it is essential to the health of our country that people not fall for this ruse. Starting foreign wars to avoid domestic problems is the oldest trick in the political book, and the fact that people still fall for it is a pretty sad statement about human nature.

Indeed, I've read that Ahmadinejad is stirring up conflict with Israel and the United States for precisely this reason: he is failing to deliver on the economy, which was a major issue in his campaign, so he needs to distract the electorate with these external conflicts. Of course, when discussing Iran, we should focus less on Ahmadinejad and more on Khamenei, who actually wields more real power. I don't know too much about Iranian political arrangements, so I should probably do some reading in this area.

UPDATE: Minipundit puts what I said above more strongly:
I refuse to take seriously an Iran hawk who refers to Ahmadinejad. Anyone commentating on Iran who acts as if Ahmadinejad wields any power is a hack, pure and simple, eager to use Ahmadinejad's flamboyance to gather support for war. Ahmadinejad is a figurehead, the centerpiece of a democratic façade hiding Ayatollah Khamenei, the real person in charge in Tehran. And it's telling that no Iran hawk has mentioned Khamenei's eschatological views, even when those are the relevant ones. When Iran hawks demonstrate a basic knowledge of Iranian politics, I'll begin to give them an iota of respect. Now, they deserve none.