Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Ignoring Iranian Attacks

If our Marines in Iraq caught a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Brigade (those responsible for training Shiite terrorists), caught him red-handed killing Americans, escorted him back to Washington, and planted him on Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd’s desk, do you think he might believe the Iranians were involved in attacks on our armed forces?

No, I didn’t think so either.

If the Marines guarding the Iranian operative were to show up at the Senator’s office while still wearing full combat gear with the blood of a fallen brother, their own sweat, and desert dust caked to their utilities, the operative kissed Mr. Dodd on both cheeks, and then confessed his guilt, might the Senator suspect something at that point?

Maybe. But as the aftermath of 9/11 proves, the whole thing would likely be forgotten when it came time for the tough task of actually confronting Iran on the subject, even if the confrontation were limited to actions inside Iraq.

As has been the case with so many politicians, he would most likely and conveniently let the incident slip from his mind, or at least remove himself to a position lacking responsibility where he felt free to criticize without taking decisive action. He would likely go back to appeasing his base when it became politically necessary to do so, rather than acting in accordance with the gravity of the situation.

After all, there are no political points to be scored right now for believing, or even suspecting Iranian complicity in the attacks on our troops. The political advantage seems to lie with taking the side of those who have called for the end of the United States.

Right now the political advantage lies in taking the exact opposite position of the White House, regardless of how short-sighted or irresponsible it might be, and no matter how closely it aligns your position to that of a country whose leader has called for the destruction of ours.

By accusing the Administration of making up the whole thing to start a war with Iran, Senator Dodd trivialized the fact that 170 of our troops have been killed and another 620 wounded by molten balls of metal, usually copper, hurtled at them from explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) because the origin of these weapons is still in doubt.

So we should now expect media watchdog Jane Fonda and her friends who recently gathered at the National Conference for Media Reform to call on the media to investigate these attacks on their fellow Americans and to verify the accuracy of the intelligence and origin of the weapons, right?

No, I didn’t think so either.

After all, their meeting in Memphis was a gathering of the anti-military, “blame America first crowd” assembled to chastise our media and put them on notice for not being liberal enough. They informed our press that they’d failed by encouraging the war on terror when they should have been stopping it.

Expecting a group like that to support an investigation which might ultimately reveal their heroes as villains and their villains are heroes is unrealistic.

So what are fair expectations for the Senator and Jane’s blame America first crowd?

What would be a fair position for the Senator to take is one that focuses on concern for the troops whose lives the reports referred to. It would be a fair position to express concern that intelligence failures of the past dictate further verification into the involvement of the Iranians. It would be fair to demand answers as soon as possible because the lives of America’s young men and women are potentially being threatened by Iran.

However, what he delivered was disregard for those who bear the brunt of those attacks and complete dismissal of the information on Iranian weapons that was likely gathered by the very forces confronting Iranian operatives in Iraq. What is inexcusable is the willingness to neglect the effect on our troops in order to make a political statement.

As for the Media Reformers, little can be expected from a group comprised of so many members who seem to exist solely for the purpose of undermining and abolishing the very rights which allow them to exist. I would expect nothing but continued hypocrisy from them with regard to the kind of investigative reporting they demand except when that reporting could potentially benefit those they despise.

In the end, we should all be concerned, without conditions, for all of our fellow Americans when evidence suggests that an entity from abroad, whether they are an individual or nation, is threatening any of us. And then we should all have no doubts, no hesitation, in openly expressing concern for each other, for taking care of each other, and standing together to defend each other against any threat. Even when that means fighting for those with whom we disagree or who may despise us.

Ultimately we are all Americans and should be willing to fight for each other, not just with one another.

No comments: