Why Billmon is right and Gilliard wrong
The lesson learned from the Democratic reaction to Israel’s war of choice is that the Dems are only likely to oppose war as long as the war in question can be framed as a fight against Iraqi insurgents and/or Shi’a death squads, rather than a fight for Israel. But the Iraq occupation isn’t going to fit neatly into that frame much longer. In fact it’s already slipped out of it. The Dems — always a little slow on the uptake — just haven’t realized it yet. But when the time comes to choose (for Israel, or against war with Iran) I fully expect to see Ned Lamont in the front ranks of the pro-war phalanx, right next to the last great white Democratic anti-war hope, Howard Dean.
People tell me I shouldn’t get hung up on this because, you know, if the Dems get in they’ll make sure the seniors get their Social Security checks a little faster — or they’ll keep the Supreme Court out of the hands of legal madmen or do something about global climate change or save the whales or whatever else it is that’s supposed to make the Democratic Party infinitely preferable to the Republicans.
It’s not that I discount these differences entirely — although they’re easily oversold. But compared to the fate that awaits the republic, and the world, if the United States deliberately starts a war with Iran, those other considerations start to look pretty insignificant. I mean, we’re talking about World War III here, fought by people who want to use tactical nuclear weapons. I’m supposed to put that out of my mind because the Dems might be a little bit more generous about funding the VA budget??? I’m sorry, but that’s fucking nuts.
If the United States gets froggy about an Iranian war, I can predict to the letter what will happen. A mass Shia uprising in Iraq and a move to take over the Saudi oil fields by Saudi shia.Iran has 130K hostages to work with and there is only one solution for the US. The US can only replay Chosin if they attack Iran, and even as stupid as the Bushies are, there are limits to what we can do, and apparently, for the IDF.
There isn’t going to be a Third World War, but a humiliated Israel and an emboldened Hezbollah. If you want to waste your day worrying about the unlikely, that’s fine. People tried to tell Marshall how to fight WWII. But those things you don’t think matter, they are the difference between life and death for many people.
It’s a lot more comforting to worry about a nuclear war with Iran than some 24 year old with his missing legs, but the reality is that the war mongers will be deflected or lead to a massive defeat and that problem with the VA isn’t going anywhere.
You go to work, have a nice life and can think about such things. But when a vet doesn’t get his disability check, he can starve, or be homeless, today, not in some distant future.
Gilliard thinks that the obvious repercussions of any war with Iran will dissuade the neocons, due to the threat they pose to the US army in Iraq. What he fails to see is that this is an exact repeat of what he and other sensible people were saying before the war on Iraq. Any fool could see that an invasion of Iraq would sooner or later start a bloody insurrection, a meatgrinder that would chew up the army in dribs and drabs, one dead soldier here, three disabled for life there, yet that didn’t stop them, then, so why should it now? For the necons, the army is just a tool tob e used and if it is destroyed doing its job what do they care? They don’t serve, nor do their families or friends. The burden is not theirs.
Furthermore, what is the point of having better disabled veteran care if you continue to support wars which make more veterans? Will veterans receiving their benefit checks on time weight up against having thousands more disabled vets to provide benefits for?
Read more about:
Democratic party,
Steve Gilliard,
Billmon