Mideast Notes - Things are Heating Up, Again

Troops are appearing near Syria -

Whistleblower activist Sibel Edmonds reported on Sunday that “foreign military groups, estimated at hundreds of individuals,” have taken up positions in the city of al-Mafraq in northern Jordan on the Syrian border.

An update on Edmonds’ blog, Boiling Frogs, states that a “journalist with a major mainstream media publication was told by his editors that there would be no coverage or follow up on these developments.”

The presence of foreign troops were also reported by a Jordanian military officer who asked to remain anonymous. He said hundreds of soldiers who speak languages ​other than Arabic were seen during the past two days (as of Sunday) moving back and forth in military vehicles between the King Hussein Air Base in al-Mafraq, ten kilometers from the Syrian border, and the vicinity of Jordanian villages near the Syrian border, including Albaej, the area around the dam of Sarhan, the villages of Zubaydiah and al-Nahdah adjacent to the Syrian border.

 Of course Iran won't take that without its own display of force -

A member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee said on Monday that the military was set to practise its ability to close the Gulf to shipping at the narrow Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil transit channel in the world, but there was no official confirmation.

The legislator, Parviz Sarvari, told the student news agency ISNA: "Soon we will hold a military manoeuvre on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure."

 The Real Effect
This morning on political talk radio, I heard a staunch neocon correctly list the virtues of arming individuals with guns and how this act of arming would add to societal stability by deterring aggressive criminals. This same laughable neocon line of thought, would see the world disarmed in an attempt to promote "world peace". Please don't ask me when these individuals traded in their brains for a bag of hammers, but it certainly wasn't yesterday.

If one examines the situation in the gulf, you come to a few, supportable positions:

• Iran is the aggressor and the U.S. is the victim.
• The U.S. is the aggressor and Iran is the victim.
• Neither holds true.

If the first is true, please explain how Iran has transgressed the U.S. If the latter two are true, which I believe can be thoroughly demonstrated, note how Iran, by threatening to close the gulf, has kept the occupiers at bay? Further, does not the cold war teach us that MAD will actually promote real peace? If so, shouldn't these individuals be giving Iran nukes like they did to China?

Update: It appears that others get this concept as well.

The idea that America should cross the globe solving every nation's problems is a progressive one. And it makes sense when you think about it. The left generally accepts that the government ought to have a very active role in society, alleviating poverty, ensuring a level playing field or the little guy, and so on. So why wouldn't the same be true of foreign policy as well?

This isn't just a matter of consistency in an abstract sense. The contradiction here has serious practical implications. Every Republican contender has preached about the need to cut the size of government, yet only Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has discussed the need to cut back our military spending, which consumes one-fifth of the federal budget. The right-to-life argument comes into play here as well. The candidates all take a hard line stance against abortion, but the casualties of war, unfortunate as they war, are one of the necessary evils of achieving our international goals.