Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Under Cover of Interesting Times

The question of Bush taking us to war with Iran had fallen off my radar. Does it deserve to be back on it? That’s the question I ask. Are furious, dire efforts (i.e. blogging about it) to counter Bush’s cynical attempts to sell us another war an imperative? Or is the prospect, at this point, so remote--that blogging the tea leaves of war reveals only the power self-fulfilling prophecy has over those who find in Bush the dictator-in-chief their inner rebel longs to overthrow?

I’m leaning toward the latter. The potential horror of it is simply too inspiring to let real world circumstances outmode the joy of earnest (wild) speculation. Preventing war with Iran has become a cause, and like so many other causes, success is not embraced least the cause’s reason for being ceases to exist. On the contrary, the cause itself becomes the sole perpetuator of the looming threat it rose up to fight in the first place. That’s not to say Bush wouldn’t sell us a war with Iran if we were buying. But we’re not, and neither is Congress, the Military or the Press.

It’s certainly not sensational to conclude that the prospect of war with Iran is vanishing. Coming to terms with that also happens to undercut the very mantra that the system itself is corrupt beyond redemption. In fact, the only real looming threat that the freewheeling alarmists appear to be faced with at this point is the prospect that these interesting times are quickly coming to an end, and with it their veil of credibility.


Schadenfreude said...

Chances of war with Iran - near zero (depending upon how you define war, of course).

Chances of a skirmish of some sort - maybe 10%.

The American left has become far too fond of its own rhetoric.

SwingLowSweetDeej said...

Seeing as how some still see blogs as a marginal source of unbiased information, I doubt the rantings mean as much as you may think they do.

But I am in full agreement that it must continue. The rise of blogs as a mainstream news source continues (see BTC's and others' efforts to gain access to the White House press briefs) and that will only increase as time passes and as more activism reaches the larger audience via blogs.

Will it affect the Iran situation? This is very Chomskyesque, but I doubt media opinions matter much. US action in Iran is far from decided because of the PR disaster known as the Second Iraq War, but future discussions on movements into Iran will not include media opinions, no matter their source.

Schadenfreude said...

Side note to ghostofaz:

Ho ho ho.

For some reason, when I think of you I always think of this passage from Shirley Jackson:

No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.

Not quite right, but not entirely out of line with your online persona.

SwingLowSweetDeej said...

You talkin' to me? Huh? Fargin' bastige.

If so, I rather liked that house, actually (the house, not the story so much). Odd, yes...

sydbristow said...

The measure of the disrepair and disrepute that your capital gang has saddled you with: what Cheney said about "all options open for Iran" (here and elsewhere) is the absolute correct thing to say (and mean) .. except their Iraqi bungle has rendered it a rather pathetic joke.

Iraq as I've said so many times is much more than just a failed war. It's a blueprint for surviving a war with America (i.e. defeating America). Which is why some sensible American in the very near future will shift focus to the economic arena (where a war can still be won) and start anew.

Caveat, of course: you have to find a way to survive the next two years.