Government by the Unintelligent

Since the War of Choice that the United States and Isreal started against Iraq approximately one month ago, I have attempted to put words together to express my feelings on the war. Yet, as much mental processes that I have put into attempting to put some words down on virtual paper... I didn't feel I had a hook. For, I am not an expert. Not on Iraq. Not on the economy. Not on the contingencies that any hostile actions in this region would ultimately bring. 

Yet, I am also not unintelligent. For certain, I am aware of the limitations of my knowledge and my expertise. However, I also am able to listen and read and otherwise make myself more knowledgeable from people who are expert in areas where I am not.

So, when our newest Secretary of Homeland Security, former Senator from Oklahoma Markwayne Mullins stated during his confirmation hearing that "I’m not going to be the smartest guy in any room I walk into," I realized that was the hook. That our government is being run by people who openly admit to not being intelligent... and wear it as a badge of honor. 

Of course, The United States have placed themselves into plenty of forever wars since the end of World War II... and I am not willing to go so far as to state that every war we have waged has been due to lack of knowledge. There were well thought out reasons for the Korean conflict and Vietnam (the so-called Domino theory). There was a reason we went into Afghanistan and ended up there for 20 years. Iraq 2.0: The hunt for non-existent WMDs certainly had a stated reason (even if it was largely made up). One could argue that the rationales did not hold up or that we in the US were sold a bill of goods that was vaporware. However, in each of these conflicts, the American President (and his various secretaries and military generals) could and did speak to the American people and tell us why they were doing the actions. 

But, with the exception of Gulf War I - where the rationale was to push the Iranian Army out of Kuwait... and the U.S. and its allies did exactly that and nothing more - the U.S. military adventurism has largely ended poorly. After 20 years in Afghanistan, we left hastily with the Taliban taking back over as if they had never left despite the U.S. attempt at regime building. Iran 2.0 left with Saddam Hussein dead and a failed state left behind that led to ISIS. The attacks in Libya during the Obama administration eventually led to Muammar Gaddafi's death and then Libya becoming another failed state - with 2 different ruling government and a 3rd portion of Libya being run by neither of those governments.

Of course, going back further, The U.S. involvement in Vietnam started in 1950 and ended in North and South Vietnam re-uniting in 1975 as one communist nation. The Korean conflict (under the auspices of the U.N.) started in 1950 - but the U.S. military had run/helped run Korea south of the since the Japanese surrender in September of 1945. The 3-year conflict ended in an armistice but no actual peace treaty (leaving it as a frozen conflict to this day) - with no major change to the division between North and South despite a million casualties. And, it is probably reasonable to include the Iranian regime change via the coup of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh with help from the British and the U.S. CIA in 1953.

The point being... history tells us that wars and regime changes cause problems. Whether short-term or long-term - Countries do not like being vassal states. Rebellion and insurgencies will ultimately happen.

However, as stated above, every war before this current Iranian War had a stated rationale. We may, in hindsight, find the rationale to be flawed or the evidence to be flimsy (or non-existent). But, there was buy-in from the public and the politicians - until there wasn't.

Not so in Iran. The vast majority of the U.S. do not agree with this war and the consequences of it. But, would more of the public agree if there was an actual rationale that was explained to us? Probably. Would we endure some of the economic pains that come with it? Probably. However, there is no explanation. Because an explanation would require intelligence in the upper reaches of the government. Moreover, an explanation would also require explaining why we did not think Iran would react in the way that it did. 

There is, after all, a reason why the U.S. has not attempted a war of any sort in Iran over the past 70 years. There is a reason why Jimmy Carter did not send in troops during the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. There is a reason why every expert on Iran and every war game regarding Iran came to the same thought conclusion. Iran would block the Straight of Hormuz. Which is a small waterway with extraordinarily large importance. Not just oil and natural gas. Fertilizer (for food production), Helium (used in the production AI hardware and in medicine), Aluminum and Sulfur. The impacts economically are enormous and will only grow.

However, for some unknown reason, President Donald Trump did not foresee that the government of Iran - facing an existential crisis - would not resort to the most obvious move on the Risk board. Because - that would require intelligent people to brief you and to guide you. Which is silly. 

In conclusion, let me quote from Danny Elfman and (Oingo) Boingo from War Again:

Aren't you glad we got smart bombs?
It's a good thing that our bombs are clever
It's a shame that our kids are dumb
But our bombs are smart, what a lucky thing now
Don't you know it's a feel-good show
And it's suitable for the whole darn family?
Come on out, everybody shout
Give a big salute to our ingenuity
Don't you know this is better than any video, friend?
It's an action movie
Here we go, watch the bad guys get their butts kicked
It really makes me feel good
Don't you know it's Nintendo?
Really gets the blood flowing through my veins now
Don't you know it's a feel-good show?

Electronic bliss, it's a video, video