Whose on whose side? Pretty much the money is lined up on one side and no money is lined up on the other side.
If anyone feels badly about the recent worldwide public opinion polls about how favorably the U.S. is viewed by the rest of the world, get ready to feel more badly. Very likely, should the U.S. and the Brits move into Iraq, without full United Nations support, the poll numbers are gonna go even more southward.
And as far as a public relations vision is concerned, think about the following:
Bush and buddies invade. Iraqi military forces all retreat into the two prime cities and mingle with the non-militant civilian population. Meanwhile, no weapons of mass destruction get used by Iraq. Bush finds his vast military might surrounding two very populated cities, each populated with a military force very capable of inflicting vast casualties on both Americans and Brits. However, not wanting such casualties, those two cities effectively become under seige, surrounded: No one gets in; no one gets out.
Were either of the above scenarios to play out--attacking those cities resulting in massive deaths on both sides or surrounding those cities leaving in them millions of starving and innocent citizens--who do you think's gonna win the PR war, especially if no weapons of mass destruction get used or are found?
Me thinks the Twin Tower tragedy, in the eyes of the wider world, would pale in comparison as the math would calculate into 3000 dead Americans versus hundreds of thousands if not a million or more dead Iraqis, many of 'em non-military deaths. |
