Reid: No Good Military Options on Iran

Some elements of the Democratic leadership have decided that there is a better talking point than "all options remain on the table." Today, Harry Reid went with the far better "no good military options on Iran."From the WaPo:Reid said the Middle East is a "powder keg" because of U.S. failures in Iraq, the rise of fundamentalism and the recent election of Hamas in Palestine.

"Our not being involved diplomatically in trying to solve the situation in Iran shows the Bush failure in foreign policy there and elsewhere." And he said the U.S. has no military option in Iran.

"We don't have the resources to do it" because of the ongoing war in Iraq," he said.

On Wednesday, Republican National Committee spokesman Tucker Bounds said the president has not ruled out military action in Iran. Apart from the fact that threatening to nuke a country that hasn't attack you is insane and exactly the sort of reckless action we fear from a country like, say, North Korea, the number one reason why there are no good military options in Iran is because Bush and company are still in charge of the military. How can anyone trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice to make the right decisions with our military anymore? The same group that brought you the disaster in Iraq now wants to bring you into an even bigger war. Iran is much more ethnically and culturally homogenous than Iraq, and has three times the population. Even apart form the insanity of using nukes or trusting Bush, the idea that an invasion and occupation of Iran would ever be "successful" is insane. No country on Earth has the capability to invade, conquer, and impose their will on the Iranian populace.

Harry Reid deserves our support for this. While much of the House and Senate caucus are still repeating the horrible "all options remain on the table" line, Reid has stepped up and pointed out the obvious. There are no good military options on Iran. The country needs to know that a Democratic congress will not give Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice the authority to bring our military into another war.

Tags: Iran, messaging, war (all tags)



Re: Reid: No Good Military Options on Iran

There's an important point here that goes to your "base mobilization" theory.  In 2002, the Republican base was energized by the promise of a big fat juicy war, while the Democratic base was demoralized because the Democrats (as led by war supporters Gephart and Daschle) weren't going to stand in the way of that big fat juicy war.

The "no military options" line will get Reid and co. an incredible amount of flak from the right and from "centrist" journalists, but the progressives will turn out to vote if they have reason to believe that more Democrats in Congress = less chance of another big fat juicy war.  Let's hope Reid sticks to this.

by maestroanonymo 2006-04-20 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reid: No Good Military Options on Iran

Yes, preventing a disterous war is a very good reason for the base to turn out. Going along with Bush on this will turn off a large number of voters (in addition to the terrible consequences of war with Iran).

by robin oz 2006-04-20 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Reid: No Good Military Options on Iran

Reid's wrong - there is one good military option, but it would require ALL, and I do mean ALL, the Fighting 101st-ers to enlist now. Including the pundits, those with small children, children of the rich and pwoerful, children of oil executives, and children of our President. Every single one who says this mission is a worthy cause should join that "worthy cause".

Why now? So they will be trained in time for the fall product roll-out. And so maybe our guys that are going out for their 3rd tour in Iraq will actually get some r&r and may live to the end of their enlistment.

by zappatero 2006-04-20 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Reid: No Good Military Options on Iran

by zappatero 2006-04-20 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Reid: No Good Military Options on Iran

Harry is wrong on this one.  There is an excellent military option available, the declaration that the US will once again adhere to the sensible policy that we don't attack anyone unless they attack us first.  The announcement that the US will not be invading, bombing, conducting military incursions, or any other euphemisms for preemptive war should calm things down quite nicely.  

by Demo Dan in Dayton 2006-04-20 12:26PM | 0 recs
Caveat on demographics

While clearly there are no military options in Iran that would not badly backfire (backfire being defined as hundreds of Iranian suicide bombers striking US forces in Iraq and US targets everywhere else in the Mid East and tens of thousands of volunteers for Iraqi Shi'ite militias.) But Iran is not particularly uniform as to ethnicity. Ethnic Persians are a bare minority: l/915_people.html

Ethnic groups     Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages spoken     Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%

by Bruce Webb 2006-04-20 04:35PM | 0 recs
Reid: Smart Iran position

I am glad Reid has staked a position on diplomacy and the failure of Bush that has resulted in no possibility of a military option.

I hope other Dems step up too. I liked DiFi's LA Times op-ed last week which had an identical position.

This position can show the electorate that the Dems are more mature and rational leaders unlike the loony bull in a china shop approach of Bush and the Repubs.

Standing against a military option by stating that such an option does not exist due to Bush's Iraq quagmire will really play to the Dem base and aid base turnout and at the same time reinforce to the Indys the consequences of Bush's Iraq failure. Nov will be decided by the extent the Dem base gets out and votes. The more DC Dem leaders like Reid play to the base the better for the party in Nov.

Smart position and statement by Reid IMO.

by ab initio 2006-04-20 05:18PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads