Sunday, January 21, 2007

Decider or Dictator - What's the Difference?

We have wondered about the distinction between Decider and Dictator ever since George Bush announced to the world that he had appointed himself as The Decider.

At first it appeared that perhaps he might have meant that The Decider would be a gentler, kinder ruler than dictators habitually have been. The Decider might be someone who could guide America confidentially and decisively through the night with the light that he alone could see.

But now as he seems to prepare an attack against Iran, and denies that such a thought ever even crossed his mind, the memories of his earlier attack against Iraq begin to echo louder with each of his disclaimers. Troops deploy, naval task forces assemble, threats are uttered, ominous words rumble, and George Bush remains imperturbable. All this is chillingly similar to his 2003 preemptive military invasion of Iraq. Then we catch the distinction.

A dictator is one who tells you what he is going to do, and what YOU are going to do. The Decider decides what he is going to do but he doesn't tell you. You have to figure it out after he has done it.

Cool, eh? Well, that means that we, while not appointed or designated as official "Deciders", ourselves, nonetheless, we have some decisions of our own that will very shortly have to be made.

© John Womack, 2007. All rights reserved.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Now Iran.

With the attack on the Iranian embassy in Iraq yesterday, George Bush has shown us a glimpse of what is to come.

Now we reflect that some of the new military men just placed in charge in Iraq are not those with experience in desert warfare or counter insurgency. Their experience is with strategic attack from the sea and the air. Two carrier task forces are now somewhere in that area and they certainly have the horsepower to hit Iran savagely, with or without nuclear weapons.

Reuters just reported that Israel has plans to attack Iran, probably with nuclear weapons and with the strong support of the United States and Great Britain. Apparently those plans cover possible action in the future, but who knows how far away that might really be?

The American attack on the Iranian embassy yesterday IS a declaration of war on Iran. We certainly took it that way ourselves when our embassies were attacked in the past. The attack also upset our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq where the attack took place. Does this indicate a major change in the American plans has just taken place?

The Iraqi leader, Al-Maliki wants the U.S. to withdraw from Baghdad and not prosecute military action in the city. This from NY Times reporter John Burns on Jim Lehrer newscast January 10, 2006. So, there are some indications that America is preparing for a new war.

The American military leadership appears to be in a state of confusion, with many opposing our continued presense in Iraq.

The attack in the Iranian embassy will certainly provoke some kind of retaliation by Iran - what and when will soon be seen. It this retaliation is so "construed" by the American presidential administration, it will "justify" and attack on Iran - to "defend" the U.S. honor.

What will an attack by America on the country of Iran lead to?

John Womack