Geode,
I know you think Republicans are incompetent and President Bush is the ‘most’ among them, but I must disagree. Only if one believes the cover story for going into Iraq would one conclude that they’re incompetent. I briefly believed that we needed to remove WMD from Iraq, but subsequent actions have convinced me otherwise…
My working theory has been that this war with Iraq began as a means to accomplish several simultaneous strategic goals:
1) Remove Saddam Hussein from power and complete the unfinished work started by G.H.W. Bush during the first Gulf War.
2) Transfer public wealth to private corporations and to very wealthy individuals. This accomplishes a Republican plank that redistributes tax money back to those to whom it “rightfully” belonged. This also aligns the strategy with the “K Street Project.”
3) Pacify Iraq enough to allow US oil companies to revitalize the country’s oil production capabilities, and then take control its distribution. This could provide revenues rebuilding the country, and for the corporations formerly run by the V.P. and the S. of D.
4) Depending on the speed at which these could be accomplished, topple the Iranian government to facilitate the same control over Iran. This part is not critical, but would be icing on the cake.
If a charismatic and opportunistic leader can convince his people that a terrorist attack was the result of someone else’s failures, and that he if could tie that attack into the first strategic goal, he would have sufficient “justification” for a large-scale invasion. Although the AQ was responsible for 9/11, Afghanistan provides little in the way of strategic value for US interests. To be heartless (as I see the administration’s view), Afghanistan is a cockroach to be step on during preparations to deal with Saddam Hussein and then Iran. If military personnel can hone their tactical procedures for dealing with terrorist and insurgencies, then there is some value in spending a few resources there. However, an expensive search for OBL does not help with any of the strategic goals stated above.
From a tactical standpoint, if the US had committed the full strength of the army (400K troops) to invade, subdue and pacify Iraq, there would not have been enough remaining men to effectively topple the Iranian government. To wit, these reserve troops would be needed to accomplish goal number 4. V.P. Cheney stated that he thought that we would be treated as liberators once we reached Bagdad. This was a tactical error, but is understandable because it would have helped accomplished goal 3, while improving the odds of attaining goal 4.
I’ve said before that the cover story for being in Iraq is to provide the ME with an example of a working democracy in an Arab country. |
