Jimblog 1.0: Acts of war

Jim makes an extremely important point that I think (though I can't say for sure) I've made before, but perhaps at a less opportune time:

On the warmongers (squishy and hard...where's the beef? What hard facts do they have to prove Syria and Iran have declared war on us by some 'acts'?

The left is letting the right define what passes for facts on Iran, in particular. We've been here already on the lead up to Iraq (The Preemptive War), with rhetoric substituting for analysis, and assertions replacing data that can reviewed and balanced.

We will regret accepting the same old masquerading as the new.

This is crucial. One of the most important silver linings of the Iraq tragedy has been the quick demise of what had been the ascendant idea that we can and should invade countries that may someday possibly become an existential threat to our security. If somehow that idea remained in good standing today, then I sort of doubt that we'd be hearing all this braying about Iran and Syria committing acts of war against our troops. We'd instead be warmongering exactly as we warmongered in the lead up to Iraq. Iraq, as it turned out, was a huge disaster, which means that conservatives are now stuck (at least) with the onus of making a prima facie case that Iran and Syria have declared war on us. It seems perfectly obvious to me that people who believe war with either of those countries would be terrible ought not let them get away with making that case so dishonestly.