Jan, you made a good point about the Saudis being as dependent upon the US/West for their defense as we are for their oil and secondly, that Iraq does not appear AT THIS TIME to have backing of China and/or the Russians. However, I disagree with you that other Arabs will not at least publicly rally around Hussein in a US-led invasion, simply because the sociopolitical climate has changed so much in 10 years and there is this deliberately set call for Islamic Jihad that did not exist before. Today, remote villagers have access to satellite TV and cell phones, not just radio reports and word of mouth much delayed. Osama bin Laden did nothing less than legitimize for too many extreme Muslims finding targets for their economic and political repression outside of their own governments. America and its allies are certainly no angels when it comes to the ME, but there is the enemy has been portrayed and evolved differently today than a decade ago. You may have heard an old adage: If you back someone into a corner with no escape, don't be surprised if they come out swinging at you"? If we target Saddam for removal without gathering at least a smattering of support for regime-change, it won't matter how fast some people think the Iraqis will fall (and I don't think that) because the larger problem will be maintaining the successor and his certain line of successors in a very unstable country in a turbulent region. As to the speculation that Iraqis will surrender and welcome US troops as liberators, I'm applying the 50% rule to that one. It is still necessary for Bush-Cheney Inc to make the case WHY this gigantic undertaking is necessary and right at this moment in time. We need a failed coup d'etat in Baghdad with pleas for help or a SCUD missile attack to level Jerusalem to override a growing sense of overreaching when it may not be necessary. I guess what I'm saying is that your comments about not supporting Hussein are based on logic and reveal a Western perception of loyalty; however, we are talking about different nations that share the same religious fervor and Hussein is a survivor who will play all the cards he can, including jihad and a war of civilizations. The big question to me is how difficult the Saudis (and others) will make the military Ops and political maneuvering. We need to pray there is no assassination in Jordan. Again, speaking as a baby boomer with an eye on history, I suspect that many Americans of my generation will be uncomfortable and reluctant to jump into the role of Empire that these plans make evident. Americans have not accepted that title, as in Evil Empire, or even a successor to the British Empire, and the expansion of military strategy in this way this fast this secretly makes American Empire a valid label. It's just too bad that Bush had to be so outspoken from the beginning about wanting to replace SH. It's been said so many times now that even if back-room maneuvering, special ops and legitimate sound diplomacy were making progress, Bush may have put himself into a place where he has no other choice but to attack. And that would answer the historians' question; the man made history. Karen Jan wrote: The second Iraq war will not be Vietnam again for several reasons. First and foremost Iraq doesn't have the Soviet or Chinese backing Vietnam had but will be utterly isolated. Secondly the Iraqi people don't believe in Saddam the way Vietnamese believed in Ho Chi Minh. Thirdly the Americans have now more conventional firepower, high technology weaponry and satellite intelligence etc. than during the Vietnam era. Fourthly everyone with a bit of sense agrees Saddam Hoessein is a dictator and criminal, oppressing his own people, which is quite something different from the north Vietnamese leaders who at least were idealists. So there will be some protest from Europe, but the anti-war movement within the US will be nothing like the anti-Vietnam-war movement. The war will not go on and on, but most probably will be over about as quickly as the Golf war of 1991 was; and that was very quick, remember? All Arabs unite behind Saddam? He would certainly like it, but there is little or no chance of that. Nothing of the sort will happen in Iran, why should it? They have been fighting Iraq for a decade, and Saddam is not their friend nor even co-religionist. And why would any muslim fundamentalists suddenly be able to take power in Saudi-Arabia next month, when they weren't in the previous year when their precious friends the Taliban were attacked? There is a point in the danger of fundamentalists taking over Saudi Arabia in the long run though. This country has been provided with weapons by the West for decades. But don't forget they fly American planes, need American spare parts, don't have satellites etc. I don't believe they stand a chance against US and British. And, guess what, they are not stupid like Saddam seems to be. They know this too. So, I'm sorry, but your scenario has a very small chances of becoming real. The Bush scenario will probably unfold more or less as planned. The main question is, what and who after Saddam... That's what keeps me busy. In any case we seem to agree that 'the empire' is going to win this war.
Jan Matthieu Ed wrote: > Keith, I rarely agree with you, but I come very close to it this time. If > Bush attacks Iraq, it may be Vietnam all over again, something that goes on > and on, produces lots of body bags and, ultimately, tremendous opposition > both at home and abroad. > > Ed
