Given the unmitigated failures of everything America has done in Iraq, the truly crazy are hoping you’ll let them go double-or-nothing on Iran.

Because the number of bombings and the frequency of massacres have slightly declined since Bush’s escalation, the president imagines he’s done something right. Throw 21,000 more poorly-equipped National Guardsmen and women into Iraq and everything will work out. Back on the “offensive,” Bush thinks we can bomb Iran into another America-lover.

Can someone sober grab the keys from this guy? In this war, like any other guerilla war against foreign occupiers in the last century (see Algeria, Vietnam or Northern Ireland), “insurgents” minimize their numerical and logistical vulnerabilities by avoiding direct combat. They go out of their way to stay clear of huge troop patrols in armored vehicles, preferring snipers, single bombs and mines. If Ithaca were invaded and occupied by Canada, and their Prime Minister announced a major “plan” to kill you, would you wait it out, or fight? This, no doubt, is the explanation for any recent reductions in Baghdad’s obliteration.

But, the troop-lovers retort, isn’t the Louisiana National Guard trained and capable of defeating the terrorists abroad, so we won’t have to fight them here? Sorry, supporter, but that there is a place, too. It’s got women, children, grandparents and even Americans dying everyday. In the so-called Global War on Terror, our leaders have put Americans in harm everywhere, and now they think bombing Iran will redeem their murderous blunders next door.

Telling us that there is something worse than Baghdad, Bush’s draft-dodging war junta is working overtime to convince you that unless more Americans and Iraqis die, more will die. And if we don’t “win,” those already lost will have died for nothing. This, our policy, turns the spiraling death total into an argument for continuing the occupation. So, if we start incinerating labs and cities in Iran, they think, we’ll make everything in Iraq worthy. By moving the goalposts, Bush seems to think that fewer living Iranians will justify all the dead Iraqis and Americans.

To put it another way, “Somehow, the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes,” says Army Ranger Kevin Tillman, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He and his brother enlisted after 9/11. His brother, Pat Tillman, turned down the Arizona Cardinal’s millions to do what he thought was the right thing, and died in Afghanistan in 2004. The Pentagon told Kevin and his parents that he was killed by terrorists. The truth came out later — friendly fire ended Pat Tillman’s life, but the Pentagon lied until it was forced to admit it.

Now, the right thing from Kevin Tillman’s vantage is the end of the Occupation of Iraq. Though it pains the “troop supporters” to hear, veterans are some of the most vituperative critics of the war: “Somehow, the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow, this is tolerated. Somehow, nobody is accountable for this.”

Surely the deaths of more people in Iraq or Iran won’t make the Tillmans safer or healthier. Now that every rationale for the first war has proved false or deceptive, and every estimate of human and financial costs has been blown out of the water, Washington’s Warriors ratchet up the war talk toward Iran. To avoid the reality of their failures, a new phantom menace is slated for regime change.

Yet before you even think about debating a war on Iran, check your sources. Ask if the same madmen who scared us with “yellow cake,” “mushroom clouds” and “WMDs” have the credibility to accuse anyone of malicious intent. With a pattern of homicidal violence and complicated forgeries, why on earth would anyone in America believe anything that supports the same policies that failed everyone in Iraq?

It’s in all of our interest, as thinking, living people, to oppose a debate between liars. Debating a war on Iran is like chatting about the best drunk drivers. These men and women are mind-bogglingly bad at what they do, especially when it comes to security. If we just think about Bush’s record in keeping Americans alive from Sept. 12 until today, it’s a disaster. If we just think about Dick Cheney’s history of calling criticism “hogwash” and insisting that the “insurgency” was in its “last throes” in 2005, or of his certainty that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, clearly this is not a man to plan, lead or orchestrate anything. Honestly, would you trust Dick Cheney around an open flame, or even your pets? These people should be shamed and prosecuted, not debated.

Whatever might happen in Iraq, Americans cannot force. The explosions we ignited are now clearly beyond our control, and no number of Pennsylvania’s National Guard can change that. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear ambitions cannot be stopped with bombs. No amount of bunker-busters will ever change this. Iran wants nuclear technology for the same reason India, Pakistan, North Korea, America, France, Israel, England, China, Russia and South Africa did — it’s a symbol of power. Only one of those countries ever abandoned its nuclear project — South Africa — and it disarmed without a B2 destroying its labs.

Trusting the liars and fools running the horror of Iraq to honestly and intelligently portray Iranian activities is dumb. Insanity is believing that George Bush is suddenly sincere, or that the criminals occupying Iraq are there because they disdain genocides. If Bush were truly pro-life, he’d send troops to Darfur to stop the situation he calls genocide. If Dick Cheney were level-headed, he’d acknowledge that no one wants America in Iraq, and that we don’t have the right to bomb or invade whenever we want.

What comes from the mouths of these men is pure horseshit. End of debate.

Jeff Purcell is a graduate student in Africana Studies. He can be contacted at jlp56@cornell.edu. Brutal Honesty appears Mondays.