Opinion
 ............................

Americans should not support contradicted war logic.

Most Americans supported President Bush's invasion of Iraq at first. They were firm and unquestioning in their support and some of them questioned the national loyalty of those of us who disagreed with it. Now many of them retreat from their former position in confusion, but still not totally opposed to the president's goals.

Americans have reason to feel confused. President Bush and Congress won their support for the invasion using emotionally charged slogans and contradictory claims about Saddam Hussein and the war. Bush never presented an honest, factually supported discussion about the need for war, its goals and the means for gaining them. He continues to use those same methods to rationalize more troops and continued fighting.

President Bush often names Iran as a nation that supports the Iraq insurgency and terrorism that frustrates United States' goals. He says this as if his accusation automatically makes them guilty of misconduct without added explanation from him. I'm sure he is right that Iran is involved in Iraq. But, this fact by itself does not indict Iran's leaders, because we support our interests there too.

Iraq and Iran share borders. Iraq, Saddam Hussein, attacked Iran in 1981 and they fought a war until 1988 with an estimated million dead. This war began after decades of border, religious and ethnic conflicts. Iraq used chemical weapons (WMD) against Iran in that war. Now, the result of our Iraq invasion destabilized that nation into uncontrolled violence the send thousands of Iraq refugees streaming into Iran. Still, President Bush claims Iran has no legitimate interests in Iraq.

Contrast Iran's and the United States' position. Iraq is about 6000 miles from the United States. Nevertheless, President Bush claim the United States had a right to invade Iraq based on the suspicion Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He claimed it was reasonable to believe Hussein would use WMD having used them against his people and against Iran.

President Bush's logic is inconsistent. He claims Iran the neighbor has no reasonable cause to interfere in Iraq although Iraq attacked it before. However, he says the United States, six thousand miles away, does have reason based on Iraq's previous WMD attacks against Iran. I want to support America's position over another nation's position. Still, I am also a realist. I know that we improve national security only if we support President Bush's position or policy that is at minimum logically true or consistent. Otherwise we support lies and confusion that harm the nation.

Even if their accusations are true, President Bush and Secretary of State Rice do not advance the United States' position positively when they publicly call Iran's leaders evil names and claim they support terrorism. Iran has an undeniable self-interest in Iraq's government. This interest will continue long after the United States' force leave Iraq. Iran is not going to sit idle and allow the United States' or anybody to install a government in Iraq that threatens its interests or security. The United States would not allow it in a neighboring nation, nor would any nation that had the power to stop it.

Why do Bush and Rice take a confrontational stance and make claims that can only worsen the situation? Calling people names and accusing them of evil intent guarantees a negative result. It gives Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more reason to suspect the United States intends to set up a government in Iraq hostile to Iran's interests. This will strengthen his motives to support the insurgency in Iraq even if he isn't doing it now. Name-calling and public humiliating people only makes it harder for them to compromise.

Secretary of State Rice named Iran as a nation that aligns itself with extremism. She said, "If the government in Tehran wants to help stabilize the region -- as it now claims -- then it should end its support for violent extremists who destroy the aspirations of innocent Lebanese, Palestinians and Iraqis. And it should end its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

President Bush says the success in fighting the war on terror centers on our winning in Iraq. He believes Iran supports the terrorists in Iraq. This conclusion is illogical. Al-Qaeda launched 9/11 from a different nation before our invasion destabilized Iraq. This gave terrorists a foothold in Iraq if they have one now.

I do not defend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He may be guilty of everything Bush and Rice claim. Nevertheless, I recall similar unsubstantiated charges against Saddam Hussein that led to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Let's not forget this unwarranted invasion destabilized Iraq. This time let's examine the evidence and logic of Bush and Rice's claims before we slide into another war that creates more problems than it solves.

Kenneth Brooks is a freelance writer and speaker. Contact him at P.O. Box 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. opinion@ethicalego.com