I heard a very interesting presentation on the situation in the Middle East tonight from a former official who follows U.S. policy there closely. Some of the key points regarding Iraq were the following:
--decisions in this administration are made at the level of the "principals" (e.g. cabinet and above), so their opinions are the only ones that count and their agreement will determine U.S. policy.
--they don't talk or reveal much to anybody about what they're doing.
--watch Cheney's visit to the region in March closely. If he asks people "would you support us on a campaign to topple Saddam?" they'll say "no, and by the way fix the Palestinian-Israel situation first, that's the real problem now." If he says "we've already decided we're going to go after Saddam, and finish him this time, and are going to do it largely ourselves, want to come along for the ride and help shape the postwar situation?" they'll say, "ok, here's what we want [no partition, Sunni leadership, no democracy], let's do it."
--should Cheney say the second, they've decided do it.
this guy thinks they are indeed going to do it. he agrees with me that the Iraq hawks are currently pushing the Afghan approach, and that Pollack's criticisms of that approach are valid, and so the administration won't in fact do it that way. But he thinks that the admin will commit to the goal and then be nudged into the more ambitious invasion option by default.
I still have a hunch that at the end of the day they might back away from it, but I must say this is all getting very interesting.
tb@weshallsee.com |
