Daily Archives: January 29, 2003
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Playing chicken or Machiavelli with Saddam?
If it turns out that Hussein caves in because of the imminent threat of destruction by us, Bush will have won a great Machiavellian victory without firing a shot. (Is that what they’re aiming for?) Somehow, I’m not sure this is what they have in mind. The next election seems a much more likely target. They’ll do this war stuff as long as it “works”, until it’s too late to stop anything.
Note: As of tonight, Joseph Biden is the only one talking about Iraq’s long borders with its neighbors (Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait) and their essential indefensibility. Too bad few here in America know anything about geography.
With the economy in a mess, if GW didn’t have his phoney “war” with Iraq, where would he be? His battle against Osama has only been a partial success. Afghanistan is no longer a safe place for al-Qaeda, but that’s about all the Administration has accomplished. Osama and most of his higher cohort are still around, uncaptured, and planning new attacks no doubt.
With their eyes pretty much stuck on the next election, will the Administration learn that insulting everyone who doesn’t fall over and fawn in admiration for their “Plan”, only makes more enemies than friends? What good can it possibly do us to call our friends insulting names like children on the playground? Somehow, I doubt the Administration will ever unbend.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
The lines of opposition to the Bush war policy become harder. We still haven’t caught Ben Laden (nor are we likely to). Europe, led by France & Germany seems more solidly against us. There have been protesters in the streets both here and in Europe – even England our “staunch” (?) ally, but all the talk is emotional – how wrong it is to make war on an impoverished suffering people with an admittedly evil leadership. Little relates to RULE, which is what we or someone will have to do after a “successful” attack – rule a people we do not understand, a country with indefensible borders, a fractious bunch who will turn on us at the drop of a hat.
And what of the clever Saddam and his “dummies”? Catch him, we probably won’t – like Ben Laden. He’s hardly likely to let us roll over his country without inflicting as much damage as possible – fires in the oil fields – a bio weapon that would poison the place for future generations – house to house conflict that inflict huge casualties and destruction. Where would you be then, Mr. Bush? All that money and blood for what?!
Wake up America! All George Bush cares about is the next election. He just wants to “be” President, and spouts whatever his most conservative handlers pass to him without having to think a whole lot about it or evaluate it deeply.
Back to Iraq. Basically it’s an indigestible part of the world for the USA, as is Afghanistan. We have neither the knowledge nor the skill to do anything in either place except cause mass misery. People who have rebelled against their rulers over and over again throughout their history are hardly likely to accept rule by Americans.