Speaking Up, Speaking Out on Alternative to War
I think America is a great country. But I have my doubts about whether or not it can survive the current stranglehold the two-party system has on our government. Both parties cling more tightly to power than to principles. And the citizenry (at large, and in my very humble opinion) seems to care very little about the momentous import of the poor decisions our leaders (of both parties) are making.

Case in point... currently both parties are trying to "out-hawk" each other about Iran. I was talking a bit about politics to my brother-in-law while driving home from Priesthood the other day. The context of the discussion was my disagreement with President Hinckley's personal opinion about Iraq (at least his pre-war opinion about Iraq, I have no idea how President Hinckley feels now... more on that here). Then the subject turned to Iran. He blurted out that we should just "bomb Iran" and be done with it. Well, if he wanted to get a rise out of me, that was the perfect thing to say, and I started going through all of the reasons why that was a bad idea and what we should be doing instead. I wasn't upset, but I wasn't calm as the summer's morn either.

My brother-in-law was unimpressed and said something to effect that "[I'm] getting too worked up about it." Now that may be true, but there is certainly cause for grave concern in my humble opinion. This conversation came back into my mind, because of something I read today:

What the War Party is counting on, in the end, is its ironclad control over the two-party system and its all-pervasive grip on Congress: this, they hope, will suppress the effects of widespread discontent and prevent popular antiwar sentiment from upsetting their future plans. They are counting on their well-organized and lavishly financed efforts to counter the rising tide of public opinion, and are hoping, at the very least, to keep the governing elites on their side. If no major party candidate offers the people a clear choice between war and peace, if the Democrats as well as the Republicans push a foreign policy of "preemptive" aggression and global intervention, then - they hope - the antiwar majority can be rendered impotent. No wonder they want to "export democracy" to the rest of the world - it's the system that keeps them in power, while masking their anti-majoritarian, anti-populist rule in the shiny raiment of democratic idealism. A more self-consciously cynical doctrine would be hard to invent.

Perfectly stated. You can read the rest here.

It's time to speak up, and speak out.

The Logic Of Deterrence and Diplomacy
I got my latest issue of The American Conservative in the mail today and have just finished reading most of the articles contained therein. Fantastic political magazine... I highly recommend a subscription. The cover article, "Iran: The Logic of Deterrence" is a very good read. Here are a couple of good quotes (but please go read the whole thing):

Given the overwhelming U.S. advantage in both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, Iran is not going to risk national suicide by challenging America's security commitments in the region. In this sense, dealing with the Iranian "nuclear threat" is actually one of the easier strategic challenges the United States faces. It is a threat that can be handled by an offshore balancing strategy that relies on missile, air, and naval power well away from the volatile Persian Gulf, thus reducing the American poltico-military footprint in the region. In short, while a nuclear-armed Iran is hardly desirable, neither is it "intolerable," because it could be contained and deterred successfully by the United States.

[...]

although a nuclear-armed Iran is not a pleasant prospect, neither is it an intolerable one. Tehran won't be the first distasteful regime to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States has adjusted to similar situations in the past and can do so this time. Rather than preventive war and regime change, the best policies for the U.S. with respect to Iran are the tried and true ones: containment, deterrence, and diplomatic engagement.

There are realistic and much more reasonable alternatives to pre-emption. Remember this when the War Party begins, in earnest, to trump up the Iranian Bogeyman in the coming months.