Rove's "October Surprise","Crazy Nixon", and Other Military Tactics

[leveymg]

Threats against Iran aren't just Rovian politics - they're sound military tactics.

In a brilliant article in The Nation, cross-posted by the author at Daily Kos, Dave Lindorff weighs the debate about whether the Bush Administration seems more likely to attack or wind down the confrontation with Iran before November 7. See, "Bush's October Surprise Exposed: Attack on Iran before Election Day", http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/213220/762

Lindorff weighs the mounting evidence that the military is preparing for deployment against Iran versus equally compelling evidence that the Adminstration has actually ratched-down tensions and is engaged in back-channel negotiations with Tehran. Of course, both can be true.

Unfortunately, because it's scary, there's a perfectly rational basis for sabre-rattling at this point with Iran. That, however, does not mean that the Pentagon has signed off on a preemptive strike with real missile exchanges back and forth across the Middle East, and burning ships in the Straits of Hormuz.

The Generals will go along with a show of force as part of a controlled project to pressure Tehran to make concessions on its nuclear programs. Yes, this is psywar, but it's not crazy. The crazy act on the part of Bush and Cheney is part of the psywar program, not the other way around.*

Unfortunately, sabre-rattling tends to politically benefit the party in power. Think of the Cuban Missile Crisis, that occurred just a couple weeks before the 1962 Mid-term elections. Actual wars, particularly those that aren't successful and broadly supported, tend to be political suicide - think about Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson in 1968.

Also, the threat of war hasn't proven to save a doomed Administration. Maybe they want us to believe Bush is a mad evangelical end-timer, like "Crazy Nixon". It served several purposes, but in the end, he took his last chopper flight off the White House lawn soon thereafter.

(For those who don't remember, "Crazy Nixon": as the Watergate Investigation closed in, there were rumours of drunk Dick wandering the halls of the White House talking to portraits and issuing threats rising to DefCon 4. All intended to keep the Main Adversary at bay and away from the Middle East until the process of presidential removal could be completed.)

Sure, the White House is pushing a confrontation. That works for them on several levels. But, an actual war -- particularly before November 7, isn't what Karl Rove might advise. Juan Cole has said that for months, and I agree with him on this.

___________________________
*That doesn't imply that I think Shrub and Co. are models of rationality and intelligence. Nor do I doubt that there are some pushing from within the Administration for a real strike on Iran. But, the neocons aren't really in charge, and don't have the influence they had in 2003. In the end, it will be the Generals who must agree to launch, and they won't go along with a preemptive or manifestly fraudulent attack on Iran. Not again, they won't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. "...a controlled project to pressure Tehran..."

Isn't that exactly what we all thought we were getting with the Iraq War Resolution? How many congressional dems have come out and said, "I voted for that to make a show of strength, unify behind the President to make a credible threat and force Saddam to make concessions. I never thought we'd actually attack."

Do you really expect a coup? That's what it would amount to, for the generals to directly defy orders from the white house. No way. They are soldiers and will do as they are ordered, or they will resign and their successors will do as they are ordered.

You really expect diplomacy? With Bolton at the UN and Condi at State? They have no idea what diplomacy means.

For all of nixon's faults, he was a very intelligent man - something few people have accused * of being.

Don't get your hopes up.