Nadine I don't know what you think you're talking about.
Scenario 1: Bush invades Iraq, causing us to inherit the full messy post-war Iraqi situation, trying to referee the Shia, Sunni and Kurds while being shot at by the Ba'athists and Wahabbis.
Now, explain to me exactly how Scenario 1 could be expected to win an election, or even to improve Bush's political situation? Surely if you want to use a war to win an election, you should schedule it closer to the election?
First of all, back in '02 it wasn't the '04 elections that he was trying to win. It was the '02 elections. Why exactly do you think he leaked the war news in late July, allowed the extremely hastily put together 2 weeks of Senate hearings in August, and the actually confirmed his plans and launched the marketing of the war in Sept of '02? Remember? The economy was lousy, the democrats looked like they were going to extend their Senate lead and at least gain a little in the House? And then all of a sudden Saddam became the greatest threat to Western civilization as we know it that we had to have a resolution authorizing Bush to use force whenever he deemed it necessary? No hearings, no study, no it had to be done then. Before the elections. Actually, he didn't care if they actually approved it or not--either way his stump speech in late Oct early Nov would have been the same as it was: help me by electing xyz, get me a Congress I can work with instead of this incalcitrant one, get me a majority in the Senate, relieve the pressure in the House. They won the '02 election because war fever stimulated their base, and normal patriotism swayed enough Independents. The bad economy was forgotten. It worked.
As far as Scenario I goes, that wasn't a scenario that they planned on. The scenario they planned on was that they would crush the Iraqi army, they would Shock and Awe the Sunni's, they would gratify the Kurds and Shias who would then be dancing in the streets and gladly extend their hands in friendship to the US and allow the wise, Westward leaning but understanding Mr. Chalabi the privilege of leading them to the promised land. Or something like that. Recall that one of the things that has been widely repeated is that their original plan had them reducing their military presence to 30,000 by Sept. Things were to have gone that smoothly. The only people that I recall talking about a "messy post-war Iraq situation" were people who were opposed to the war. Yes, there was some trepidation that Saddam would try to use WMDs during the war, but it was pretty clear that the military thought that they could handle it. And of the US was ready to wipe anyone out with cruise missles who might have tried such a thing.
Surely if you want to use a war to win an election, you should schedule it closer to the election?
No, you want the war to be over by the election, as well as any messiness that might have risen because of it. They timed the war perfectly in March '03. Get it over with, stabilize the situation there, and then claim what a wonderful victory we led, we got rid of that horrible man.
BTW, why is it that the same people who are most upset about our 1980s support of Saddam are the most against our ousting him in 2003? By their reasoning, shouldn't we owe the world to get rid of him?
Yes, but there are ways and there ways. The way we did it has almost ensured that the situation there won't be stable.
Sorry, I have to go now, have to cut this off. |
