This, Mr President, is how wars start

Don't think for a minute Bush doesn't know it.

New Statesman

Andrew Stephen in Washington warns that war could easily be triggered by the Bush administration's sheer incompetence

Like, DUH!

Flat-out lies, contradictions, the right hand not knowing what the left is doing: that, by far, is the most worrying aspect of the Iran crisis unfolding before us.[...]

But let us pause and take a deep breath. I have not spoken to anybody in Washington this week who actually thinks the Bush administration is planning imminent war against Iran, though I would be prepared to bet that Bush will launch some kind of military strike against Iran before he leaves office; I have, however, talked to insiders who think war with Iran could yet be the logical outcome of the muddle-headedness and incompetence of the Bush administration.

"If the Iranians decide to respond by showing that they can be tough guys, too, we could easily get an escalation of a tit-for-tat nature," he told me. "It would start in Iraq, where we start to do things and they respond. Then we [the US] believe they're responsible for that, and so we decide to ratchet it up by hitting them somewhere else, and then they respond by hitting us in the Gulf. And then we are at war."

More than 42 years ago, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner were allegedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnam, who claimed severe provocation. History is still vague as to what triggered a series of tit-for-tat incidents between the mighty US and little North Vietnam. But it is all too clear about the outcome. That, Mr President, is how wars start.

Spies and Commandos; How America Lost The Secret War In North Vietnam (Heh - U. of Kansas Press) details how the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which launched the formal upgrade of the Vietnam War actually happened.

I read the book some time back, so this is from memory, but since I've got a mind like a vanilla trap, it's probably pretty close. It shows how a more or less accidental incident can trigger a war if such an incident is needed by the administration, i.e., any incident will do if it serves the intended purpose.

The CIA had a small-boat campaign going against North Vietnamese bases along the coast. South Vietnamese sailors and Agency personnel would dash in, shoot the joints up, and dash out. They did this several times. On the occasion in question, the NV were waiting for them and gave chase. The CIA boats spotted Maddox and headed towards her, seeking aid, either from gunfire or maybe just intimidation of their pursuers.

Said pursuers were shooting at them. Picture firing a large caliber machine gun from a pitching patrol boat at high speed. Boats heading directly for the U.S. destroyer, rapid gunfire at the boats from the pursuers. Got the picture?

One round, one round, hit Maddox, no doubt an overshot from the NV boats. Those guys weren't stupid: if they'd have attacked a destroyer with those speedboats, the tin can would've perceived a torpedo attack, opened up with everything it had, and blown them out of the water leaving not so much as an oil slick. Perhaps the boats had torpedoes, but if so, they didn't use them.

Whether or not Maddox was at that location on purpose just so the Agency people could precipitate the incident is unclear, but doubtful, to me at least, given the difficulty in getting the the right hand to co-ordinate with the left hand and actually pulling it off. Bureaucracies, CIA, U.S. Navy, just don't do that very well.

Didn't matter. The incident was sufficient unto the need, and ten years of stupid war ensued.

That is more than enough provocation than Bush needs to do what he wants to do to Iran.