Attacking Iran?

Why the Congress must vote on a declaration of war with Iran.

The evenly politically divided nation we live in can’t even agree on whether on not we are being attacked even as American’s die not in Iran, but Iraq. And so many citizens blame the USA for all the Iranian’s have been doing to us since 1979. And so many other citizens think the blame the USA crowd has invited the exact Iranian actions we all object too. Nobody thinks Americans should die, I still believe. And all believe in diplomacy first; even many support the modern version of diplomacy without threats of overt military action if diplomacy fails. At best this group supports vague threats of watered-down UN economic sanctions, or some kind of MAD doctrine assuming the Iranian leadership thinks like us. Of course, the MAD doctrine types are willing to accept the death of some major western city first which many who live in the likely cities object too. Just ask Israeli leaders and families what they think about the president of Iran talk about wiping out the Jews as his government develops nuclear technology against the entire world, including the UN.

The USA deserves a recordable vote on war with Iran by our Congress. The federal politicians will avoid this idea at all costs since the present model of complaining without offering alternatives seems to help so many get reelected. Those anti-war pacifist types, who are a small minority of our country and the democratic party, also deserve a chance to be on the record. Then we voters can decide, hopefully before the 2008 election. And this bottom line issue is one of National Interest.

A vote on war with Iran in the long run will help unite this country, which is so much needed. Avoiding a vote just continues the divisions. For those that cannot accept the voting process, go away, one way or the other. Find a better place to try be dominate; or change our Constitution. History since the 2006 election suggests this minority cannot even end the war in Iraq by cutting off funding, though both Houses have tried. Perhaps some have read the tea leaves that they are a minority. A vote on war with Iran will reinforce this belief.

Of course going to war is very serious business, fraught with consequences never anticipated or expected, and much less preferable to diplomacy. This is not an original idea. The phoney war in Europe after declarations of war in WWII failed to stop the war that followed, and all the horrible consequences that descended on much of the world. The WMD incidents of Russian nukes circa 1991 (just after the dissolution of the USSR) going to Iran, or the satellite photos of convoys of Iraqi somethings going to burial sites in Syria come to mind.

In the USA, prosecuting a small war, such as in Iraq, to many means accepting two things today. One is that AQI has chosen to define their war on us there in Iraq. The second, is that professionals seem to now be in charge both in Iraq and DC as compared to after the invasion. Such people understand and respect that small wars includes the basic three requirements from the USA point of view: local security with jobs and family and tribal quality of life, protection from outside Iranian interference, and forcing the Iraqi politicians to get in step to maintain USA support.

All of these aforementioned opinions, as well as regional impacts in Mesopotamia, will come in a debate about whether to go to war with Iran. There should be no Iranian sanctuaries, for example. The Iranian IRGC should be very vulnerable, and recent history and presidential actions suggest so. But these findings are less than a declaration of war.

It is in our National Interests to have this debate, and vote. This should help diplomacy, and avoid another phoney war.