January 11, 2007
Building a Case for Casus Belli
It's a sad fact that in today's world, no good deed goes unpunished. America is the most generous of all countries, not just of our treasure but our blood: no other country on earth would have led a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein when it was so much easier just to mass troops along Iraq's border and threaten war -- in order to extort a huge oil-lease jackpot, like everyone else was doing.
No other country contributed as much to Tsunami relief as did we. No country has done as much to help the poor around the world. No other country has stood up to tyranny and injustice as we have. And what do we get in exchange? Faugh.
Yes, I said "faugh," and I meant it to sting!
Now we have the ludicrous situation where Iran is frantically trying to develop nuclear weapons; Iran controls the largest terrorist organization on the planet; Iran repeatedly -- incessantly -- nakedly threatens to obliterate another nation, wiping Israel from the map; Iran has been caught red-handed shipping high explosives into Iraq to kill Americans... yet we still would become world outcasts were we to attack Iran without iron-clad evidence that they had declared war on us first.
Unfortunately, we cannot live without international commerce; the days of Fortress America are long gone, if they ever existed at all. Therefore, before actually doing anything about Iran -- the "Herman Option," for example -- we must build the case for casus belli.
Fortunately, it shouldn't be a hard case to build... and even more fortunately, we have a president who seems determined to lay out exactly such a case. Thus, today we raided an Iranian government building in Irbil (not a consulate, as has been erroneously reported) and captured six Iranians:
The forces entered the building about 3 a.m., detaining the Iranians and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. Irbil is a city in the Kurdish-controlled northern part of Iraq, 220 miles from Baghdad.
A resident living near the building said the troops used stun bombs and brought down an Iranian flag from the roof. As the operation went on, two helicopters flew overhead, the resident said on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
At the Pentagon, a senior U.S. military official said the building was not a consulate and did not have any diplomatic status. The six Iranians were taken in a "cordon-and-knock" operation, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
I'm not sure why, but the extraordinarily ungrateful Kurds seem to be hopping mad. But the Iranians are showing a great deal of restraint... the kind one shows when one has been caught with his hand in the milk bottle:
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told state-run radio the raid was "against a diplomatic mission" since the "presence of Iranian staffers in Irbil was legal." Hosseini claimed the action by coalition forces reflected a "continuation of pressure" on Iran, aiming to "create tension" between Iraq and its neighbors.
Note the tortured logic to imply what they seem wary of saying out loud, lest they be called up on to prove it: they do not actually claim that those in the building have "diplomatic immunity," but boy do they try to imply it! Evidently, any Iranian in Iraq legally is, therefore, on a "diplomatic mission." What does that say about those Iranians in Iraq illegally... such as those four we caught in December? We're still holding two of them; the other two actually did have diplomatic immunity -- which shows the Iranians are not shy about asserting it when they can prove their case.
And what about this minor incident? Do the Iranians think we've forgotten that we seized from Iraqi Shiite militia members a batch of Iranian-made weapons and munitions -- with a manufacturer's date of 2006?
U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official....
Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.
Each of these incidents is just another brick in the wall; but when the wall has enough bricks, I believe we're actually going to drop it on someone: something along the lines of the "Herman Option;" and in Bush's speech announcing it (while it's already going on), I believe he will lay out each piece, brick after brick, until even the Democrats will be stymied.
After all, what will they argue: that we should announce to the world that it's open season on Americans?
In his most recent Mullings (the January 11th, 2007 edition), Rich Galen notes an interesting conundrum for those Democrats who have come out hard and angry against President Bush's new strategy:
- If the change in strategy works, and we make measurable and unambiguous progress in the Iraq War, then the bitching and moaning Democrats will look like cowardly, defeatist, un-American dolts;
- If the change in strategy fails, then what are they going to say? "See, we told you America was finished!"
Americans love a winner; but even if we lose -- and everyone has to lose now and again -- they still love a man who goes down swinging, rather than one who won't even step up to the plate, because he knows he's going to strike out anyway.
So let's give George the bat and get the hell out of his way.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 11, 2007, at the time of 11:58 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1663
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
I agree. And I wonder what Bush told Maliki, whatever it was he seems to have gotten the message. I hope it is for real.
Maybe he told him that if the US was forced from Iraq we were going to make sure some folks did not live to see it.
The above hissed in response by: Terrye at January 12, 2007 4:20 AM
The following hissed in response by: Trickish knave
Excellent commentary and you correctly bolded the last statement which sums up how I feel about the extra troops sent to Iraq. We have to try to stabilize something in that country even if the Democrats wish to expedite our unconditional withdrawl. But I think this has to be our coup de gras, our last hail Mary to the end zone.
It is impossible to win against enemies who are united in their cause to kill Americans (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc) when the Americans themselves are divided among themselves on the best approach to combat our enemies abroad.
Amadnihjad (sp?) just had a pow-wow with Chavez and the FoxNews bottom screen ticker asked if it was to conspire against the U.S. I would have to give an unoquivicable "DUUUUH!" to that one.
A serious conflict with Iran looms on the horizon like the McNaught comet. It is just a matter of time methinks.
Great post, btw.
The above hissed in response by: Trickish knave at January 12, 2007 2:18 PM
The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka
Yeah, I see that happening. How much evidence did we bring to the Democrats and UN about Iraq, that was a pretty solid case, but what was the result.
Why do we have to build a case for Iran? You don't need to look for evidence to give us a reason to take on Iran, it comes looking for you. But the people who are agains the GWOT don't care about evidence, they care about getting power (Democrats) or weakening America (UN). Evidence be dambed.
The only thing that will get this war up and going is a victory in Iraq, a Democratic win in 2008 (force them to take responsibility for the GWOT) or another major terrorist attack on US soil (bad for Bush because he did not protect us).
Sorry that I am so down on this but I just don't see people joining the war camp anytime soon. How do you get people to join you in a war that has been going on for almost ten years when they refuse to admit there is a war going on at all? They think if we choose not to be at war then we are not. It's the monster in the closet, if you don't open your eyes then it's not there.
The following hissed in response by: tazzerman2000
"They think if we choose not to be at war then we are not. It's the monster in the closet, if you don't open your eyes then it's not there"
I could not have said this better. Right ON the money...
For those who do NOT believe we are at war, may I suggest the following: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005/05/006100print.html
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved