Why Is Congress Helping To Start A War With Iran?

Another letter to my Congressman. He's usually on the progressive side of the issues, but I discovered that he had signed on as a co-sponsor of House Continuing Resolution 362:

"Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes"

Sounds harmless, right? Well, here's what I had to say. (I wrote this over lunch at work, so the arguments aren't as well supported as I'd like due to time limitations, but I think it still gets the point across.)

Dear Congressman _____,

Today I am writing to you regarding my concerns about H.Con.Res. 362, a resolution that would declare that Congress considers Iran a serious threat to international peace and stability. My concern is that passing this resolution that ostensibly seeks to contain a potential threat would, ironically, be likely to make that threat a reality. Recall the Bush administration's (and particularly Vice-President Cheney's) selective memory of facts and utter disregard for truth. This document would most likely be "misconstrued" as a declaration of war on Iran.

I am not naive; I know that Iran does represent a threat. I am also not blinded by ideology or greed; I believe that Iran represents a great opportunity as well. Iran is now a country of young people who are not well-represented by their current government. Even within that government, there are differences of opinion: there are those who seek to confront us, and those who truly have their country's best interests in mind. Belligerence on our part only strengthens our enemies, as it makes their dire warnings to their countrymen seem all the more believable. Belligerence is not strength: it only seems that way to the fearful and ignorant. Diplomacy is strength: it is hard to listen to those that we fear and mistrust, but only through a frank dialogue and exchange of security concerns followed by concrete actions can that fear and mistrust be mitigated. A very real possible outcome to negotiations would be that Iran accepts thorough and ongoing inspections of their nuclear power program to insure that it stays that way, and they come clean about any past nuclear shenanigans. In return, we establish formal diplomatic relations with them, and pledge to at least try to live up to our obligations under the NPT to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal.

Allowing the Bush administration any opportunity to escalate the war of words with Iran into something far more deadly will be a mistake with consequences that make those of the AUMF of 2002 look like an overdue library book. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether war with Iran is justifiable or desirable; with what forces exactly will we prosecute this war? The ones in Iraq? The naval fleet that is vulnerable to a swarm of supersonic anti-ship missiles possessed by Iran? Nukes? Can you in all honesty imagine that any of those options will have even modestly pleasant consequences for this country? War with Iran is neither justifiable nor desirable. H.Con.Res. 362 is a bad piece of legislation that will increase the probability of a catastrophe that could plunge this country into terminal decline. I am not pleased that you have added your name as a co-sponsor of this bill.

Sincerely,

Stochastic Eclectica

The Democrats are really starting to piss me off. They made the gains they did in 2006 because folks like myself wanted something done about the corruption, criminality, and incompetence of the Bush administration, but instead they continue to appease and enable.

BTW - I think some other people are pissed too. I actually saw a small spontaneous demonstration on a street corner last week here in a medium-sized Southern city. There were a whole range of statements being made: vote Obama and no offshore drilling are the two that stick in my mind. I should carry a sign in my car so I can join them if it happens again.

FISA Fight - Take Three (or is it Four?)

I just signed DFA's petition to the Senate opposing immunity for the telecom companies that aided and abetted George and Dick's Ye Olde Warranteless Wiretapping Programme. I thought I'd repost the comment that I added.

I think "We the People" have been quite clear on this for some time now. Stop spying on us!

Realistically, any official eavesdropping should at the least be subject to these conditions:

• Independent oversight to prevent most instances of unjustified intrusion.
• Robust minimization (and oversight of same) to prevent most instances of harm resulting from unjustified intrusion.
• Notification and legal recourse for those that are harmed by unjustified intrusions are critical in insuring that illegal behavior carries consequences.

Even with these provisions, the system could still be corrupted, but it's a hell of a lot better that the intentionally corrupted system that we have now. It could at least be the opening point for a renewal of the national conversation on the appropriate balance between government power and individual privacy.