Interesting question Mr. Philp.
The pre-war rhetoric coming from both sides would indicate that it has always been a "regional" war.
If we consider US actions since 9/11, it would not be difficult to argue that it's gone well past mere rhetoric. And obviously the terrorist/radical enemy considers the battle field to be the entire globe.
The US has taken the initiative by selecting the Kabul and Baghdad battle zones and upping the ante at the same time, i.e, "if my cities are at risk, your nations will be."
Considering the number and diversity of cities and nations which the "enemy" regards as his, this is likely going to be a truly "cathartic" experience for humanity. Ultimately, if the enemy is serious about "changing" our policies in the manner indicated, they cannot allow the war to be limited to Iraq. ...Or any other discrete national boundaries.
I don't know the future, but you could view this war as being a contest for the hearts and minds of nation states rather than of individuals. That is, radicals attempting to force national governments to act to force the US to change it's policies; and the US attempting to force these same national governments to act to suppress the radicals.
For me this explains why the US is determined to eliminate S. Hussein, rather than simply defeat him. And it's why the radicals believe it so important to support him despite his obvious weaknesses as a head of state. The Arab radicals see no future at all in Western Civilization cum Americana. This isn't true, but the belief makes Hussein palatable.
The stakes are very high for a very high number of nations and individuals. Ultimately, I would have to guess that this war is going to suck in a lot more people and nations before it runs its course.
Before its over I would think that the odds are pretty good that we'll see an exceedingly long period of varying "degrees" of war and peace much like the Peloponnesian Wars in many respects, but quite unique in others.
By the time history puts a period on it, the principal antagonists will likely have names quite unlike Hussein/OBL. A "democratic" Iraq could easily become no more than a strategic base of operations rather than an ultimate objective. Diplomacy has already become just another weapon in the arsenal.
0|0 |
