Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Why I can believe we may see an invasion on Iran

Chuck O'Connell, a sociology professor of mine during my days at Pierce College and a frequent contributor to CounterPunch, once warned in a class that we needed to be aware of heightened "war rhetoric" as it pertains to specific nations. Heeding his advice, I have had a keen eye on the build-up against Iran.

It began with the pervasive accusations that Iran was the home of the terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks. Then there was President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the new "Axis of Evil" during his State of the Union address. Since that time, we have seen a ramp up in negative reporting about Iran in the American media and an increase in the reported animosity coming out of Iran from the Iranian people. President Mahmoud Amhedinejad, a powerless figurehead, has become the characture of the Iranian people and propagandized throughout the Western world as an evil dictator, when in reality he is a mouth-piece for a very small section of the Iranian populace. Nuclear power plants and nuclear technology funded and provided to Iran in the 1970's under the Shah has become suspect and a "threat" under the rhetoric of the Bush administration. In sum, the war rhetoric has been increasing over the past five years.

A lack of manpower has held us out of Iraq. But, with the reported decrease in violence following January's military surge, many of the troops pulled out of reserves are now in active duty and will be recalled back stateside in the early summer according to the administrations plan, still having six to twelve months left on their active status. Suddenly a surplus of manpower has been created. Even though upwards of 200 people are still dying each week as a result of the untamed violence in Iraq, we are beginning to exit. How does this make sense?

Well, manpower is needed for an invasion of Iran. Here is an article in the Washington Post by dan Froomkin outlining the same concerns. Are we looking at a third front to add to this war? Froomkin seems to think so, and I can't see why not.

No comments: