Like Darth Vader of "Star Wars" infamy, we Americans are part of the 'dark side' of our Capitalist Democracy; for the evil within the system comes from us all.

Noted "60 Minutes" commentator, Andy Rooney, stated in a TV editorial that we, as a nation, shouldn't be upset that only about 38-40 percent of the population actually vote. Rooney's take is that only that percent should vote because, regardless of what side they're on, they're the one's who are informed as to what's going on in government. In other words, the running logic being, uninformed people should not vote - but they do; and therein resides the problem.

What criteria do they employ for making a voting choice decision if they are not informed? Well George W. Bush was voted into office, by us, the American people, twice. Yes, we inflicted him upon ourselves!

Therefore, this may explain why, as the ongoing and increasingly violent carnage of an uncalled for conflict in Iraq, an incompetent leader manages an approval of rating of 27 percent.

The Twilight Zone of American Politics: The Electorate

  “…War on the other hand is such a terrible thing, that no man, especially a Christian man, has the right to assume the responsibility of starting it."
Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

Logic dictates that President George Bush's approval rating should be no higher than the baseline estimate of severely radical minds in this country; which I would guess to be somewhere in the range of, at most, 1 to 2 percent. However, the remaining 27 percent still boggles the mind. How in the universe of all that is remotely sane is this possible?

There is a possible explanation out there that runs the average of the sublime to the ridiculous with reference to this query, and it is based upon the premise that in a democracy all minds, inclusive of the sane, insane, impractical, intransigent and, thereof, possible political combinations of all, can be heard should they so chose to be; either individually or in mass.

As a respected friend, mentor once stated to me along these lines, - "Always keep in mind - they can vote!" And that unassailable fact is quite scary given the present state of affairs in the Middle East, for it means President Bush has just enough public support to fuel an undeclared strategy.

Insane as it may be he can placate the lunatic core of his political base (led by Vice President Dick Cheney) and, at the same time, recklessly avail himself of one last chance to regain a credible legacy: which in his mind is achievable by finding any opening he can to attack Iran.

Politics: The Organization of Alternative Reality

Our cowboy Commander in Chief wants to leave office with some semblance of accomplishment, and he desperately desires to do so without the Iraq 'monkey on his back': the greatest military disaster in American history. So as a last ditch effort, he has come up with, not a new plan, but a reworked plan that did not work the first two times it was tried.

After replacing two war theater generals who disagreed with him, he went in search of another Ulysses S. Grant. After all, that's what President Abraham Lincoln did during the American Civil War, when the conflict was going well for the Confederate insurgents, and badly for the Union defenders.

A renowned drunkard, Grant relentlessly pushed forward against the better disciplined, but not as well armed Confederate forces, and regardless of how many of his men he mercilessly chewed up in the process he just kept coming; never allowing his adversary time to rest, regroup or restructure. He had the fighting strategy and demeanor of a barroom brawler - and it worked. But it is important to note out that, this time; there are some significant and potentially deadly differences from the Iraq War.

We are not fighting in our own country to hold together a young and fragile union. This time we are fighting and dying in someone else's country to preserve the values of a ‘democracy’ we have imposed upon them. And this time, we are being led by a reformed drunk and 'born again' Christian, who has chosen for his Ulysses S. Grant a military leader, General David Petraeus, an avowed Neocon who believes as he does.

In Iraq we are fighting that country's citizens who have formed a determined resistance against us. We cannot categorize them all as 'terrorists' for in fact, like the Confederate forces during our own Civil War; they are rightly 'insurgents.' And although neighboring countries influence their motives, and they may receive active encouragement along with material support from other foreign powers, on a number of occasions during the early years of our fight for independence, so did we.

On the Horizon: the Gulf of Tonkin Ploy - Again?

It looks suspiciously like someone at the White House, the Pentagon, or possibly both centers of command is giving serious thought to revisiting the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Incident of the Vietnam War. This time, however, they may be doing so to see (with some modification) if it will work in the Middle East. The following is a quick background of then occurring historical events:

The Incident

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was, reportedly, two attacks by naval forces of the Republic of North Vietnam against two American destroyers: the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The 'alleged' attacks took place on the 2nd and 4th of August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.

The outcome of that incident was the passage of the Southeast Asia Resolution (generally known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which granted President Lyndon Johnson the authority to assist, militarily, any Southeast Asian country whose government was jeopardized by communist aggression. The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam Conflict.

In 2005 a report was issued by the National Security Agency, indicating that the alleged second attack did not occur. However, the report's authors made every effort to dispel the long-standing suspicion that members of the Johnson administration had 'knowingly' lied about the true nature of the incident.

Provoking the Iranians

In late December 2006, President Bush, via the US Central Command, ordered the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower to the Persian Gulf, followed up on January 4, 2007 by the deployment of a second carrier, the USS John C. Stennis to the region. Both carriers were sent along with the full accompaniment of their escort support ships.

Added to which, on January 11, 2007, President Bush ordered an unspecified amount of Patriot missile batteries to be sent to the Middle East, but not specifying just where they will be installed. One has to be mystified why such a sophisticated missile system should be deployed against insurgent activities?

Clearly, this provocative move has very little to do with Iraqi insurgents - directly. This missile deployment is being aimed at Syria and Iran; and for conformation, simply take careful note of the recent moves against Iranian 'diplomatic representatives' stationed in Iraq (with the permission of the Iraqi government) by the American military.

President Bush has stated that as part and parcel of his new troop surge strategy, the military intends to 'disrupt and deter' all attempts by Iranian and Syrian elements to re-supply and equip Shiite insurgents with sophisticated armament; with particular reference to more sophisticated Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) that have taken such a heavy toll on American forces. His exact words were:

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks supplying advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

To achieve the successful intervention of such incoming supplies, the American military will more than likely be fired upon by the forces engaged in transporting said material. And it is more than likely that, in their own defense and of their transportation efforts, these outside forces will employ surface to air missiles against the Americans. It then becomes evident as to why the Patriot missiles are being deployed at the ready.  This strategy, however, is the beginning of an escalation of monumental proportions for the region.

In order for it to be employed efficiently, no matter how well a plan is executed, successful intervention has to be ‘outside’ the borders of Iraq, which means 'inside' the borders of either Iran or Syria or both.  The minute such raids are carried out, the conflict enters the first stage of a regional war (like President Nixon provoked when he ordered attacks into Cambodia in 1970) – from which all experts agree, there is no turning back (See editorial August 2006:"President Bush: Please Don't Do This")

Several members of congress, including Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and Senator Joe Biden (D), have warned the President, in no uncertain terms, that he does not have the legal authority to initiate ‘cross-border’ raids into Iran or Syria, without congressional approval.  But as former Bush backer Conservative columnist, George Will stated, “When has this ever deterred him?”

Impact of the Israeli Factor - Unknown

At present, because of the Iraq War and other commitments, the United States military does not have the manpower resource to take on Iran single-handedly; and none of its” Coalition of the Willing” partners will join in such a venture. There is however one Mideast government that has a vested interest in joining such a fool foolhardy collaborative effort: Israel.

Israel’s fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and evolving know-how skills with the technology is well known.  They fear not only a first strike (which most experts regard as unlikely) but, more importantly, losing the strategic leverage they have of being the only power on the block with such a decisive destructive capability.  Without it, none of their hostile neighbors (improving with each war) have little to fear from them.

What makes the situation even more disturbing is the history of Israeli risk taking excursions; they have been known to go for the spectacular. The Iraqi mess will appear to their strategic planners as an excellent cover to launch preemptive attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. And military analysts agree that for such attacks to have a meaningful long-term affect, the use of low yield 'nuclear initiatives' become mandatory.

The nightmare scenario of an attack of such magnitude, and the resultant worldwide future repercussions ring out alarmingly throughout the developed world. Nor did it ease the area’s jitters when Jane’s Military Digest and other reliable sources recently published claims that the Israelis are thinking and planning along just such lines. (Click to see photos and graphics of Iran's extensive nuclear development sites.)

Such a joint venture is of little risk to the Israelis, but harbors substantial long-term risks for America.  For in the end we would most likely have no allies in the region (other than Israel) – no matter what the outcome. And most importantly, we would still need some portion of the region’s oil.  

What would an extended Middle East Conflict look like: It's anyone's guess. The possibilities are varied and none to them bode well for America or the rest of the developed world, all highly dependent upon a significant stable oil supply. Like it or not, most of the outcome depends on Iran's retaliative capabilities, the avenues of which are many.

In the End, What Will the End Be Like?

At this point in history when so much is at stake in such a volatile yet critically important region to the developed countries of the world, President George W. Bush must remember that the fate of 300 million Americans hang on his actions, foolish or otherwise.

Therefore, we are forced in desperation to remind him of the old adage, "When you’re in a hole, even one dug unintentionally, for God's sake man, stop digging!" Don't attack Iran!