Does “The Decider” Decide on War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Has Congress given George Bush a green light to attack Iran?
For he is surely behaving as though it is his call alone. And evidence is mounting that we are on a collision course for war.
—Iran has detained several Iranian-Americans, seemingly in retaliation for our continuing to hold five Iranians in Iraq.
—The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran is making progress in the enrichment of uranium and denying it access to Iran’s nuclear sites.
—Bush is calling on Russia and China to toughen sanctions.
—A flotilla of U.S. warships, including the carriers Stennis and Nimitz, has passed through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf.
—U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell has told CNN there is “very credible intelligence” Iran is funding Sunni extremists engaged in the roadside bombing of U.S. troops.
—CBS reports the United States has engaged in the industrial sabotage of Iran’s nuclear program by making the equipment Iran acquires on the black market unusable or destructive.
—ABC reports that Bush has authorized the CIA to mount a “black” operation to destabilize Iran, using “non-lethal” means. The absence of White House outrage over the leak suggests it may have wanted the information out.
—ABC.com reports U.S. officials are supporting a militant group, Jundallah, in the “tri-border region” of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Jundallah, a Sunni Islamist group seeking independence for Baluchistan, claims to have killed hundreds of Iranians.
While U.S.-Iran discussions have begun, there are reports Vice President Cheney and the neo-con remnant, along with the Israelis, are opposed to talks and believe that the only solution to Iran’s nuclear program is military. Whether this is part of a good-cop, bad-cop routine to convince Tehran to suspend enrichment, we do not know.
But this much is sure. If the U.S. government is aiding Islamic militants who are killing Iranians, and Iran is providing roadside bombs to Iraqi militants, Sunni or Shia, to kill Americans, we are in a proxy war. And it could explode into a major war.
So the questions come. Where is the Congress, which alone has the power to take us to war? Why are the Democratic candidates parroting the “all-options-are-on-the-table!” mantra, when as ex-Sen. Mike Gravel noted in the first Democratic debate, this means George W. Bush is authorized to attack Iran.
Why does Congress not enact the resolution Nancy Pelosi pulled down, which declares that nothing in present law authorizes President Bush to launch a pre-emptive strike or preventive war on Iran—and before launching any such attack, he must get prior approval from both houses of Congress?
If we are going to war, is it not imperative that, this time, we know exactly why we must go to war, what exactly the threat is from Iran, what are the likely consequences of a U.S. attack on a third Islamic country and what are the alternatives to war?
For there are arguments against war, as well as for war—and the former are not receiving a hearing, as both parties compete in their fulminations against Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler of the Middle East.
What are those arguments?
On Iran’s nuclear progress, there is a real question as to whether they are producing purified uranium. Iran’s refusal to let the IAEA see what it is doing suggests it may be covering up failure.
Second, though Iranians sound bellicose, Iran has not started a single war since the revolution of 1979. Indeed, Iran was the victim of a war launched by Saddam Hussein, whom we secretly supported. Not within living memory has Iran invaded or attacked another country.
But in the last 110 years, peace-loving Americans have fought Spain, Germany twice, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq twice and Serbia. We have intervened militarily in the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Lebanon and Grenada. We bombed Libya. Now, a case can be made for most of these wars, whose fallen we honor on Memorial Day.
But the point is this. Why would Iran, with no air force or navy that can stand up 24 hours against us, no missile that can reach us, no atom bomb, and no ability to withstand U.S. air and sea attack, want a war with us that could mean the end of Iran as a modern nation and possible breakup of the country, as Iraq is breaking up?
Whether one is pro-war or antiwar, ought we not—if we are going into another war—do it the right way, the constitutional way, with Congress declaring war? Or does the Democratic Congress think that what is best for America is to let “the decider” decide?
Because that is what George Bush is doing right now.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Bill Wilder on 29 May 2007:
Buchanan gets back on message after a momentary drift re: “the Surge.” But there’s little reason for optimism the Dems in Congress will stop the President from pursuing war against Iran.
2 Comment by Jon Harrison on 29 May 2007:
I daresay Cheney and his acolytes, as well as the President, would like to “deal with” Iran militarily. But that simply isn’t going to happen.
We need to look at the practicalities. The Army and Marine Corps are woefully overstretched because of Iraq. A war against Iran would have to include a ground invasion – bombing alone can’t do
the job. We just don’t have the ground forces available.
Additionally, the Democrat Party, though pro-Israel, is even more beholden to its left-wing, antiwar constituency. Those folks would walk away from the Party if its leadership were to support a Bush war on Iran.
There simply is not a big enough constituency out there in favor of war against Iran. The administration is currently playing chicken with Iran, but if push came to shove, we’d back down rather than enter hostilities. (Caveat: if Iran were to attack our forces in the Gulf or in Iraq, for sure we’d fight – but the Iranians aren’t that stupid.)
I have to say, this continued warning cry about a Bush war against Iran, which I hear from both right and left, serves only as a means to avoid dealing with the hard questions that need to be asked, such as:
1) How do we best wind down the Iraq misadventure?
2) What is our future relationship with Iran to be, and how should it be managed?
3) What is the best policy to follow in the Middle East generally, especially given our continued dependence on the oil resources
possessed by the Muslim world?
In my articles in Liberty Magazine over the past six months, I’ve tried to provide answers to these questions. Worrying ourselves silly about a Bush war against Iran – a war that cannot, as a practical matter, be launched – is just away to avoid the hard questions we should be trying to answer.
3 Comment by Bill Wilder on 30 May 2007:
While all the issues you raise are essential to be addressed, I fear your are over confident that war with Iran cannot happen. In a political climate of “one upmanship” on pro-Israel, “tough on terrorism” nonsense, and with the Likud poised to return to power in Israel, war with Iran is a very real possibility. If you think the general staff of the Army or Marines would stop it, I suggest your read an important article in the current Armed Forces Journal on the miserable quality of the general officer ranks (filled with men who pander to the politicians).
4 Comment by Allen Wilson on 30 May 2007:
I believe that with the crass stupidity, criminality, and insanity of ‘our’ so-called ‘leaders’ we will have war with Iran. Doubtless we haven’t the forces to launch a ground invasion of any large scale, and if we did, the resulting quagmire would be even worse than Iraq. Sea and air strikes to take out infrastructure are the only feasible option, but doing this would be frought with all kinds of evil consequences, not the least of which would be the long term result of the observation made by the entire world that we didn’t launch a ground invasion and occupation because we were incapable of doing so. Who, with appropriate sea and air/air defence capabilities, really need fear us? Buildups of these capabilities would accelerate all over the world, while we spent years gutting ourselves on our own bayonets in Iran. Result: when U.S. air and sea power decline (and they will, just as our land power has), balance of power will shift to land forces again, and whoever has the large armies will dominate vast regions. All because we were too stupid to re-allocate most of our land, sea, and air capabilities to defending North America and expelling hostile aliens from our shores.
5 Comment by Jon Harrison on 30 May 2007:
Mssrs Wilder and Wilson:
With respect, please understand that the issues you raise do not go to my two essential points:
1) We haven’t got the wherewithal to “do” Iran at this time, and won’t for the foreseeable future.
2) There is no constituency large enough or powerful enough behind an Iran war policy. The political firestorm that would follow our initiation of hostilities would be unprecedented. Bush would have less support among the public, in Congress, and in his party than Nixon did in August 1974.
I won’t debate the moral fibre of the officer corps. It matters not. They have not got the horses to do Iran. Ever since the war on Iran idea started to tak shape back whenever Sy Hersch first raised it in the New Yorker, I have been telling my friends on the right (and those few I have on the left) that it ain’t gonna happen. And it ain’t. Not because Bush-Cheney wouldn’t like to, but because they can’t.
You can bet the farm on it.
6 Comment by Andy Kornkven on 30 May 2007:
Response to Jon Harrison:
“1) We haven’t got the wherewithal to “do” Iran at this time, and won’t for the foreseeable future.”
But “doing Iran” does not necessarily mean it has to entail a ground invasion, as in Iraq. The attack might just be an air and missile campaign, with the goal destroying Iran’s military capability and nuclear energy facilities.
“2) There is no constituency large enough or powerful enough behind an Iran war policy.”
What makes you think it matters whether there is a constituency behind him or not? Was there a constituency behind the Iraq policy? There was, that being the significant minority of Americans that automatically supports its president in any military engagement whatsoever. Given Iran’s reputation in the US, and the still-fresh memories of the humiliating hostage crisis of 1979, I’d say that minority is even larger and more vocal than that which supported and continues to support the Iraq invasion.
We’re an empire now, Jon. The requirement of having the people behind you before inititiating a war is a vestige of the now lost republic.
7 Comment by Jon Harrison on 31 May 2007:
Response to Mr. Kornkven:
We’ve been an empire since the founding; an international empire since 1945, or perhaps 1898. Our imperial status has nothing whatever to do with whether this administration is going to make war on Iran.
An “air and missile campaign” will not be undertaken because it can’t work. Please study just the publicly known facts about the dispersal of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Additionally, the civillian casualties would be enormous. With our standing in the world already badly degraded, we aren’t about to kill thousands of Iranians in a new war.
Buchananites (God bless ‘em) and some lefties were opposed to Iraq II from the beginning; but the Congress of the United States endorsed the war, and if you consult the data from March ‘03, so did a good majority of the country. There was a constituency for war in ‘03. No such constituency exists for war with Iran today.
I say again, people are wasting their time worrying about Bush attacking Iran – can’t happen; won’t happen. Mark my words.
8 Comment by Mace Price: The Despised Redneck of Barstow on 1 June 2007:
…I will