I just finished reading "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" by Tim Weiner, and I'd recommend it highly to anyone even thinking about supporting another pre-emptive war based on so-called "intelligence" developed by the agency. Due to the almost virtual absence of human, vs. electronic and signals, intelligence, the CIA has been dead wrong in well over 95% of its assessments since World Wat I. It seems the only successes they've enjoyed have been the result of blind, stumbling luck.
I considered it ludicrous that this country went to war in 2003 on such nebulous intelligence, given the relatively recent (1975) debacle of the "domino theory" that justified American intervention in South Vietnam. We lost 58,002 young Americans in that fiasco, which saw us get our butts thoroughly kicked, yet not even one single additional domino fell. I guess we should feel good that the Iraq war has claimed "only" a little over 3,000 American lives, but even one life lost constituted a gross injustice given the flaky justification for the war, which has morphed from weapons of mass destruction, to weapons of mass destruction related programs, to ties with Al Qaeda which were categorically refuted, to salvation of a poor little old oil-producing country from a cruel dictator, to the tired old "making the world safe for democracy" diatribe. And now we're even thinking quasi-seriously about invading Iran? Puh-leese!
Haven't you tuned in for even a few seconds to the Congressional testimony of the Army chief of staff within the last few days? Our military is stretched to the breaking point by the combined actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. To even fleetingly think that we could mount a credible third offensive is patently absurd.
I don't know exactly what to think about Iran's nuclear program. Maybe it really is only for the purposes of producing energy. Would that be as surprising as the fact that Saddam Hussein's assertion that he had destroyed his chemical, biological and (non-existent) nuclear weapons turned out to be absolutely true?
As far as Ahmadenijad, anyone who seriously thinks that he's not completely controlled by the high-ranking ayatollahs calling the shots in that country is seriously deluded. He's not the source of the threat, if there is one. It's the theocratic hierarchy pulling his strings.
But let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a legitimate nuclear threat from Iran. Even if they have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon, which is a dubious assumption at best, they have no viable means of delivering it, with the exception of planting it in the suitcase of some islamic nut case, and that would be a seriously huge suitcase, which would very likely be detected. A better case can be made for importing such a weapon in cargo, which is notoriously subject to only cursory inspections, but someone would still need to deliver a significantly bulky package to the site of its intended detonation.
All the foregoing conjecture ignores the well-established principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction), which served us very well during the Cold War. Iran, or Iraq, or any number of countries wanting to do us harm, has to know that for every deliverable atomic weapon they could hope to produce, the U.S. has a couple of thousand that are already, or could be instantly, targeted at them.
So don't try to play the fear card that the neocons have played to their considerable advantage over the past four years with me. It'll take a whole lot more 'actionable intelligence" than has been produced to date to make me even mildly concerned.
__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."
Clarence Darrow |