Attacking Iran
According to many of the military strategists who testified before a House subcommittee on national security, attacking Iran would be unwise.
Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson a former Advisor to Colin Powell stated: “The more widespread strikes, while devastating, and they would be, would solidify a nation of 70 plus million people, a great number of whom are under 35 years of age, a nation that is anything but solidified. And the uniting factor would be nationalism and a visceral hatred for America.”
Retired Col. Samuel Gardiner, U.S. Air Force points out: “We can destroy three to five years of construction. We know how long it took to build those, but the effect on the nuclear program, we may accelerate it. As a strategist, I would say you don’t take military action when you don’t know the outcome.”
In fact the strategists argued going to war with Iran would just reinforce the belief it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself. Experts predict the ranks of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard would swell and its support of terrorism would increase and any moderates would be undercut.
Former Deputy Director of the CIA Counterterrorism Center Paul Pillar insists: “Many would see the U.S. action as a blow not against proliferation of weapons but against a Muslim country with a regime that Washington doesn’t happen to like. So the dominant global consequence in my judgment, especially in the broader Muslim world, would be an increase in anti- Americanism.”
Unfortunately, Congress continues to pretend that our government’s occupation of Iraq and preoccupation with Iran has nothing to do with oil.
Senator Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a resolution giving Bush authority to put more pressure on Iran. The Democratic Senators that voted against that amendment warned that it could open up a new front in Bush’s “war terror.” Bush can now claim that because both the Senate and House have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and specified that they’re associated with al Qaeda, he doesn’t need to go back to the Congress to attack Iran.
For years Iranians were subjected to repression by the shah, who was placed on the throne by our CIA. Furthermore, America supported Saddam Hussein throughout the Iraq/Iranian War, when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranian people. Obviously, “visceral hatred” is understandable.
Nevertheless, our politicians refuse to admit that Iran’s desire to possess a nuclear weapon is to protect themselves from a capitalistic imperialist superpower.
Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson a former Advisor to Colin Powell stated: “The more widespread strikes, while devastating, and they would be, would solidify a nation of 70 plus million people, a great number of whom are under 35 years of age, a nation that is anything but solidified. And the uniting factor would be nationalism and a visceral hatred for America.”
Retired Col. Samuel Gardiner, U.S. Air Force points out: “We can destroy three to five years of construction. We know how long it took to build those, but the effect on the nuclear program, we may accelerate it. As a strategist, I would say you don’t take military action when you don’t know the outcome.”
In fact the strategists argued going to war with Iran would just reinforce the belief it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself. Experts predict the ranks of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard would swell and its support of terrorism would increase and any moderates would be undercut.
Former Deputy Director of the CIA Counterterrorism Center Paul Pillar insists: “Many would see the U.S. action as a blow not against proliferation of weapons but against a Muslim country with a regime that Washington doesn’t happen to like. So the dominant global consequence in my judgment, especially in the broader Muslim world, would be an increase in anti- Americanism.”
Unfortunately, Congress continues to pretend that our government’s occupation of Iraq and preoccupation with Iran has nothing to do with oil.
Senator Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a resolution giving Bush authority to put more pressure on Iran. The Democratic Senators that voted against that amendment warned that it could open up a new front in Bush’s “war terror.” Bush can now claim that because both the Senate and House have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and specified that they’re associated with al Qaeda, he doesn’t need to go back to the Congress to attack Iran.
For years Iranians were subjected to repression by the shah, who was placed on the throne by our CIA. Furthermore, America supported Saddam Hussein throughout the Iraq/Iranian War, when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranian people. Obviously, “visceral hatred” is understandable.
Nevertheless, our politicians refuse to admit that Iran’s desire to possess a nuclear weapon is to protect themselves from a capitalistic imperialist superpower.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home