From Bush's speech, I got a vibe--not a strong one, but the thought crept into my consciousiness--that there's a wider plan in the mill. That once the US forces are firmly perched in Iraq, new demands will be placed on both or either Iran or Syria.
Let's play a little What-If?
First, I doubt both Iran and Syria are happy about Bush's remarks about them in his State of the Union speech. They might interpret his words as threats toward them, not now but down the road. Both of these nations might reevaluate what their positions will be should the Bush start moving his war toys into Iraq.
Secondly, regardless of what Bush or any of his warmongers say, Bush is still in a box here. And it's a deep one and very complexly designed.
He's well in the box with Iraq; he's well in the box with Afghanastan, Pakistan and, yes, India; he's well in the box with North Korea; he's also in a box with Venezuela, and Peru and Equada have been acting up, not to mention Colombia; and whether he recognizes it or not, he's in a special kind of box with Turkey, what with their relationship to Iraq's northern Kurds. And, as a side note, there's more going on in Africa than just them getting the AIDS aid he promised in his speech. The point being there are many fronts of concern. Both Syria and Iran know this.
What if, because of Bush acting tough in his bid to impress American citizenry, who really don't want to go to war at all, Syria and Iran figure they're next on his list. That Bush's real aim is to better do, and with more force, what Britain failed to do in terms of defining MidEast borderlines where right now, as a recent opinion column suggested, there are countries with oil but no water; and countries with water but no oil.
Surely, when Bush pulls the trigger, Iran's and Syria's respective militiaries will be on full alert. So what if the Coalition of the [K]Willing's ground forces approch near Baghdad, and both Syria and Iran then decide, in tandem, "oh, what the heck!" and they send into Iraq both air power and ground forces, in the thinking that they've had enough of Bush's shenanigans, his unwanted bid to redefine their Arab world?
Mewanwhile, what if OBL--he's very likely still out there folks--and Al Quada worldwide begin getting disruptive in parallel: in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, the Philipines, etc.? What if, due to all of this, Turkey's citizens attempt to overthrow the Turkish government (remember, 90 percent of 'em are opposed to the Iraq war and Turkey helping out)? What if there's an overthrow attempt in Pakistan what with its nuclear arms, and in this course of this some type of horrendous action is committed against India in this process? And just to make things really nice, what happens if North Korea, not missing a trick, decides to invade South Korea.
And while all of the above is going on, let's assume South and Latin America, together with Africa light war fires in varying ways.
FACT: They'll be no US, deeply bogged down in Iraq, in most any of the places described above to come to the rescue while pesky brinkmanship erupts everywhere in chain reaction.
What would Russia and China be doing in such a situation, set back and play a game of chess?
Look what happened when Prince Ferdinand got shot--who'd have thought all that!?!
War. Why?
a) Just cause.
Does such really, really, truly exist? I don't think so.
b) All remedies have been exhausted?
Has the Arab world really had a bid and the backing to find a resolution? Do other nations have leaders with other ideas that just might somehow fit to a different understanding? Could an expanded inspection team with a longer definition of commitment ultimately solve the problem? Would Bush be willing to meet with Saddam in the presence of leaders from other Arab nations? Bottom line? Remedies have not been exhausted.
c) Is going to war the lesser of all competing harms?
Well, let's play What-If! |
