The MSM is picking up a story that blogs have been talking about for a while now: Iran's involvement in Iraq.
Attacks on American-led forces using a lethal type of roadside bomb said to be supplied by Iran reached a new high in July, according to the American military.They go on to talk about how the attacks from Iranian supplied and trained groups are intensifying and how they brilliantly suspect that this is an attempt to hurry congress to a decision in September.
The devices, known as explosively formed penetrators, were used to carry out 99 attacks last month and accounted for a third of the combat deaths suffered by the American-led forces, according to American military officials.
But the real question is what are we going to do about it? I was discussing this today and listening to a fellow on the radio talk about Moammar Gaddafi and Reagan's solution. He asserted that Iran wasn't worth boots on the ground, and that a few carefully placed cruise missiles would cut down Iranian activity quite a bit.
I'm glad I'm not in Washington making these kinds of decisions because I really don't know what the right thing to do is. Here are things I would need to be able to quantify in order to facilitate my decision making process:
- How does our continued presence in Iraq aid national security efforts?
- Given that, how important is sustaining that presence? What cost does it rate?
- How does Iran's involvement play into our troubles in Iraq?
- What legitimate options do we have to neutralize Tehran's Iraq activities?
- How would these options be carried out?
- How can we ensure that these potential strikes do more than galvanize Muslims?
Its time for some saber rattling -- or for the sound of cruise missiles.