Who's next?

[ElvisL1ves]

Sez Maureen Dowd today (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/opinion/09DOWD.html) (yes, I know):Mr. Wolfowitz, however, played the diplomat on Sunday, gliding past Tim Russert's probing on whether the neo-cons' dreams of other campaigns in Syria, Iran and North Korea would come true. Pressed, he said, "There's got to be change in Syria as well."

And the Times's David Sanger reported that when a Bush aide stepped into the Oval Office recently to tell the president that the hard-boiled Rummy had also been shaking a fist at Syria, Mr. Bush smiled and said one word: "Good."
Given that those wascally WMD's have been reported (via planted story, maybe?) as having been sent to Syria, and given Rummie's comments, and the military presence right next door, and the presence of a convenient seacoast there, it looks like the road to Damascus is next (minus the conversion). That's even without invoking Likudnik influence over Bush, leading to the defeat of Israel's last plausible external enemy.

So whaddaya think? Will Assad Jr. get one of those fresh-from-the-oven North Korean nukes in time to have a deterrent? Will Dubya get it going in time for election season? Will he even pretend to be interested in any other views next time? Will the triumphalist neocolonial yahoos be just as jubilant?

[Rib Eye]

Greenland. They should be easy to beat.

[DrDeth]

If anyone, at this point in time, Syria.

[Grey]

Why would you bother invading if you have Turkey, Israel and the newly minted Iraq all next door? It would be messy, long and wouldn't even have the tenuous justification that the ceasefire, SC resolutions, WMD, embargo deaths via the oil-food plan provided. That by itself would massively undermine any hope of legitimate change through invasion.

Besides I think we'll have enough going on just getting Afghanistan off its face and onto its knees while walking the knife edge of providing an interim governing in Iraq.

[Tars Tarkas]

well, with mystery jets (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MBET3M2W1NQWMCRBAE0CFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=2532118) invading Japanese airspace, and NK threatening to nuke us, the obvious target is Syria. Cuz they now have the WMD we said Iraq did, based on our proof of saying so.

[ElvisL1ves]

Grey, I think the barriers you've mentioned, while still important to the world as well as to a large part of America, will be disregarded by Bush's handlers next time. What do they care about how legitimate anyone else sees their actions?

I do think there will be someone next, someone easy to beat, somebody whose colonization will serve certain interests, and not necessarily on the announced roster of the Axis of Evil. The hangovers from Afghanistan and Iraq won't take hold in time, and won't sway them anyway.

[rjung]

I'm afraid to say that I think Elvis is on the right track here -- the Bushies simply have to sketch a possible connection between Iraq and Syria (especially easy to do if nobody finds any WMD stockpiles in Iraq), the usual conservative suspects will fan the flames of war, and we'll be rattlin' the sabers once more...

A majority of the American public have already shown themselves to be gullible sheep; how hard would yet another snow job be?

[John Mace]

NK is the most likely next target, but with the possibility that they could do some real damage to the neighborhood, I think the US will be reluctant to pull an "Iraq". No way would we invade Iran unless they did something REALLY obvious to threaten us. Syria is a tricky question. Most poeple in the US know a bit about S.H. and Iraq, so it wasn't too hard to get support here. Who the hell knows anything about Syria? I'm skeptical that Bush could get a national concensus even if he wanted one.

[SuaSponte]

Burma/Myanmar. I'd say Congo/Zaire (just keep your names the same, damnit!), but I'm afraid that is simply too big a job.

To preserve racial/religious balance - even though there are considerably worse countries in the world - regime change in Belarus wouldn't be a bad idea.

Sua

[McDuff]

John Mace, how many Americans knew where Afghanistan was before you started to crank up the invasion machine?

[John Mace]

McDuff: True, but we traced the origins of the 9/11 terrorist atacks directly to Al Qaeda in Afganistan. Americans learned REAL QUICK about Afganistan/Taliban/OBL/AlQaeda. Not to brag or anything, but I'm a pretty educated, fairly well read guy and I can't tell you squat about Syria. The president will have an enormous PR campaign to wage if he wants to whip up the country to go after Syria. Not unless there is a very specific, significant action taken by Syria to glavanize the public.

The US had some fairly strong pretext (agree with it or not) to invade Iraq. The whole Gulf War I scenario and the many, many UN resolutions. No comparison in Syria.

Of course anyone who sees the US as warmongers will not believe there is any sense of restraint over here (not directed at you, McDuff).

[Lemur866]

I'm confused. Anti-war people were complaining that there were plenty of other dictators in the world as bad as Saddam, so why were we just going after him? Now that Saddam's regime is crumbling, and we start looking around at all the other murderous dictators on the planet, you act as if that is inconsistent. No, it is consistent. The fall of Saddam Hussein sends a message to the rest of these third world dictators: you could be next.

But, I think we've bitten off quite a mouthful with Iraq. I can't see an American invasion of anyone in the next year. Maybe we'll have another one just in time for 2004.

[Tars Tarkas]

When the constant invasions seem region specific on oil rich lands against people of a particular religion, you bet people will keep complaining.

[mrblue92]

I say we go after Stalin.

Sure, you say, he's already dead. But I say, a guy like that, you can't kill enough. I mean, can Stalin really be *too* dead? I don't think so. It's the only way to be sure.

After that, Mao, Hitler, then back to kick Saddam a couple more times for good measure...

[John Mace]

Tars: What constant invasions are you talking about. Or are you speaking of future potential invasions? If so, then I agree with you. If not, then I'm not sure what your point is. It would be true of any country. So what?

[ElvisL1ves]

"Constant invasions" = this one + the next one (this thread subject) + the one after, if I understand correctly.

Time to go get Gadhafy, I say - he was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and a number of blown-up servicemen in Germany, and he's still alive (and has lots of oil, too). The Libyan military literally couldn't even beat Chad. Seriously, why is he not on the list - because he's been "contained"? Not like Saddam is/was, for sure. Does Halliburton have dealings in Libya?

[John Mace]

Tars must have been talking about the constant invasions by Iraq of countries in the region (Iran, Kuwait). Yes, people should keep complaining about that.

[msmith537]

McDuff "how many Americans knew where Afghanistan was before you started to crank up the invasion machine?"

Most of us Americans are actually pretty smart. Besides, Rambo saved Afghanistan from the Russians in Rambo III.


I would be very surprised if we invade anywhere else in the near future. North Korea and Palestine/Israel are probably the next major political issues to be addressed but I don't see a massive invasion as the solution to either problem.

[Grey]

When exactly is all this going to happen anyway? It looks to me like several factors have to line up.

1. Bush get re-elected with a clear margin. Seeing how you guys start campaigning about 1-1.5 years before the election he'll have to start now.
2. Bush administration has another target they've been dying to get at for the past 10-12 years. Off hand NK is the only one that comes to mind.
3. Said target is sufficiently attractive from a strategic point of view (requires troop commitment for containment, threatens regional stability, threatens economic interests, potentially able to provide WMD to those with money, lacks a local power able to contain/moderate)
4. Sufficient numbers of the public are pre-disposed to removing the previously mentioned target.

As John Mace pointed out, Iraq had the crucial 4th point down solid. From my viewpoint, there was always a sufficiently large minority itching to remove Saddam’s Iraq, and a larger majority disliked his regime. Thatcher wanted him gone too, so it wasn’t a uniquely US view.

Assuming Bush wins the next election, only NK fits the bill. Even then, there is a local power (China), and the idea of sacrificing allies (SK/Japan) negates 3 and 4 by virtue of the potential damage NK may be able to create.

That said I’ll shed no tears if NK goes the way of Iraq.

[Spavined Gelding]

My money is on Syria.

Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, [I]et. al.[I] are already muttering about Syrian aid to Iraq. We have Syria sandwiched between (among?) Iraq, Israel, and the Mediterranean and Turkey. The Fourth Infantry Division is just sitting around with nothing to do. The First Armored Division is looking for something to do (can’t let those heavy infantry types get all the press and decorations). Eliminating Syria goes a long ways toward elimination aid and support for the Palestinians and gives the Israeli-Prussians a free hand in Lebanon, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza.

Now all we need is a credible pretext. Maybe they need the blessings of freedom and democracy? Maybe Syria is holding the Holy Sepulcher, or the True Cross or a Red Heifer?

[rjung]

Originally posted by Lemur866
Now that Saddam's regime is crumbling, and we start looking around at all the other murderous dictators on the planet, you act as if that is inconsistent. No, it is consistent. The fall of Saddam Hussein sends a message to the rest of these third world dictators: you could be next.
You want to pay for the next one, then?

[Skydive101]

Yup, everything points to Spain (http://www.theonion.com/onion3913/bush_sizes_up_spain.html)

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by John Mace
Tars must have been talking about the constant invasions by Iraq of countries in the region (Iran, Kuwait). Yes, people should keep complaining about that.

Since the Iran one was sponsered by us, we get an assist on that one. Our invasions of two arab nations needs to get a non-arab state done next to stop the anti-muslim conspiracy theories, and needs to be an economic sinkhole to quiet the US imperialism theories. Since it looks like now we are threatening Syria, i don't see that happening. Good thing Shrubya united, not divided, the world.;)

[London_Calling]

No one’s next – as long as Bush can keep Cheney on a leash.

What matters now is the next 12 months of opinion polls. As always, foreign policy is subject to the demands of the domestic electorate. Bush will adjust according to the numbers and if the economy doesn’t perform, the military might, or at least threaten (a little jingoistic patriotism, the GOP loves a little flag-waving – hey, it worked well for the mid-terms).

[Frostillicus]

I fear that the good ol' USA will be next. I think there is going to be some serious payback from various terrorist groups.:(

[Scruff]

$5 on Syria.

It connects the Eastern Med with the new American Protectorate of Iraq and it provides a strong and close ally to Israel in the region (something which they have been sadly lacking.)

Then Lebanon when no-one is looking -- "Oops, was that a stop sign?"

[John Mace]

Tars: Which 2 Arab nations? Kuwait? I wouldn't call that an invasion. Afghanistan? Not Arab.

[Scupper]

Well, we obviously need to restore order in Nigeria (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2003/0401cripples.htm). Oh, and Venezuela's been a bit dicey lately, too.

Then there's Syria and its Weapons of Mass Destruction that we know exist because we know Iraq had them and we can't find them, ergo they are in Syria. If not Syria, maybe they're in Iran (only time, and a few infantry divisions, will tell).

North Korea? Now, there's a problem. Can't invade them. They've got weapons, you know. Real, honest-to-the-God-who-guides-our-President weapons. It's one thing to drop bombs on Iraqis that can't even see our troops, but quite another to attack a bristling porcupine of AA missiles, artillery, and (possibly) nuclear weapons.

Well, there's Belorus, they've got a nasty dictatorship going there. And Libya, of course. We can't forget Khadaffi.

Yes, earth is what the administration likes to call a "target-rich environment."

[John Mace]

Scupper: Sadly, you are correct. Our world is full of petty dictators and quite a few large repressive regimes. But I'd be willing to bet my next months pay that, barring some 9/11 type of terrorist act, you will not see the US pull another "Iraq" before the next election. And I pick that date, not because of the election per se, but just to put a date out there in the future but not so distant future.

[Coriolanus]

The 4th Infantry Division will be heading to Tikrit in the north of Iraq. They are the most technology advanced division ever. They will park in the north right by Syria, Turkey and Iran. If Rummy and Wolfie and shaking their fists right now in the general direction of Damascus - perhaps they might use the A-word - Annex!

The "Bush Doctrine" - "You're with us or against us" might have Iran ringing the "on your side" first. They know they're still the 800 lb. Gorilla of the Middle East - even if we're the 2900 lb. Gorilla. Iran knows they could do border incursions with Mad-Max vehicles all along the Iraq-Iran border - and much worse now that vengeance is in the air.

[Beagle]

Syria, of course. France, logical n'est ce pas? Iran, Axis of Evil: part II. North Korea, the trilogy. Switzerland, nobody would see it coming. Saudi Arabia, the awakening, "who blew up the WTC?!"--GWB Germany, for old times sake. ;)

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Scruff
$5 on Syria.
Lebanon when no-one is looking -- "Oops, was that a stop sign?"
Not even necessary. Lebanon is effectively occupied by Syria - that's how their civil war was ended; by invasion.

Perhaps it can be a pretext? Liberation of the noble, oppressed Lebanese people, who want only peace, including with Israel. Remember those 200 Marines who Reagan got blown up in Beirut - let their sacrifice not be in vain.

[Grey]

Sigh. Look if you really just want to randomly throw out countries that might be invaded by the US at least give us a rational as to how and why such a thing would happen. Otherwise put me down for, let’s see, the Vatican.

Obviously the dictatorial edits of its strong man “the Pope" preventing his subjects the full and free expression of their human nature is evil and should be over thrown. Besides, the Vatican has a history of suppression, invasion, and outright genocide that cries out for correction to protect our future.

Whee! That was fun. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

Originally posted by rjung

A majority of the American public have already shown themselves to be gullible sheep; how hard would yet another snow job be?

Sure, sure. You know all the right answers. Don't trust the public. They're gullible sheep. They're all wrong, too stupid to know who or what to support.

Right?

Er... I like my country's system of government just fine, even though it depends on the will of the gullible sheep.

Thanks.

- Rick

[aahala]

I propose Djibouti as the next step on the liberation tour.

It has the following advantages. It's an extremely small country and we can probably wrap things up in about 2 hours, most of which will be used to find it on the map.

It is stratigically located on the south end of the Red Sea and is on our way home. Nobody in the US has heard of it but many of the citizens speak French, so such a move is likely to garner great support here.

It will only take a few people and a printer to hold the country--if any natives cause trouble just issue them a check from the Turkey fund which is still available. And being on the ocean could make it a great spot for our military personnel to take shore leave.

[Grey]

Ok. So much for this debate.

[tagos]

Originally posted by Grey
Ok. So much for this debate.

What's there to debate? The US has abrogated to itself the right to attack anyone it chooses if it thinks it might have the ability to present a threat to it's interests sometime in the future.

Beginning with Syria it seems.

Well, one good thing has come out of it all. Americans can stop bitching about Pearl Harbour and concede Imperial Japan was within it's pre-emptive self-defence right.

[Grey]

Look ElvisL1ves asked for a debate on the likelihood of the Bush administration overthrowing another regime within the next 18 months or so.

We've seen a bunch of joking about Greenland and some more serious talk about Syria but nothing that backs up why people think that way. If we're just throwing names out randomly this debate is pointless.

If you can layout exactly why you feel the Bush administration will invade country X with points that can be debated and not hand waved away, lets hear them.

[PatriotX]

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2543220)

Hawks Set Sights on Iran, Syria as Baghdad Falls
Thu April 10, 2003 09:26 AM ET
By Arshad Mohammed

It's time to bring down the other terror masters," Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute wrote on Monday... in a piece entitled "Syria and Iran Must Get Their Turn."

"Iran, at least, offers Americans the possibility of a memorable victory, because the Iranian people openly loath the regime, and will enthusiastically combat it, if only the United States supports them in their just struggle," he added. "Syria cannot stand alone against a successful democratic revolution that topples tyrannical regimes in Kabul, Tehran and Iraq

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld... said on Wednesday the United States had evidence Damascus might be helping Saddam's relatives and supporters flee the country.

[Grey]

And from the same article No one is explicitly advocating force against Syria or Iran but conservatives inside and out of the U.S. government hope the Iraq war will signal to Damascus and Tehran that seeking weapons of mass destruction may be hazardous to their health.

"I hope we could change the regimes without military force and I would not contemplate using military force in those places," said Kenneth Adelman, a former Pentagon aide and early advocate of toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by force. Wow! The US administration wants terror sponsoring states gone but not necessarily through force. I’m shocked! shocked to find rationality going on here.

So we’re still looking for some evidence of the Bush administrations desire to invade countries at the drop of a hat over the next 18 months.

[booka]

Originally posted by London_Calling
No one’s next – as long as Bush can keep Cheney on a leash.

What matters now is the next 12 months of opinion polls. As always, foreign policy is subject to the demands of the domestic electorate. Bush will adjust according to the numbers and if the economy doesn’t perform, the military might, or at least threaten (a little jingoistic patriotism, the GOP loves a little flag-waving – hey, it worked well for the mid-terms).
I disagree that U.S. foreign policy is subject to the demands of the electorate.

Rather, foreign policy is determined by the government according to the best interests of the U.S. as a state entity, and then spun and media'fied so that the majority of the electorate will support it.

I think the difference is important.

I also do not think that the Bush administration is nearly as concerned about opinion polls as previous administrations were, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Finally, Cheney is not on a leash. He's a part of the governmental decision-making group that determines what is the best course of action for America's long-term strength, vitality, dominance, and survival.

Any assertions that Cheney is being kept on a leash are just rhetoric. Do you have any substantive cites to back your assertion that Cheney is "kept on a leash" by Bush, lest he wage war on other countries?

[mrblue92]

Originally posted by Grey
So we’re still looking for some evidence of the Bush administrations desire to invade countries at the drop of a hat over the next 18 months. You should drop that particular pretense. You're not going to find any "evidence", at least nothing solid. Hell, you could look back six weeks ago and still see Bush claiming there was no desire to invade Iraq. And in at least some sense, I think he was honest about this, though unintentionally self-deceptive in that he had already painted us into the corner of war, so to speak. He didn't *want* war (few people do, even among "hawks"), but he wanted to compromise even less. Which clearly means he did want war instead of compromise. Such are the vagaries of political speech.

I don't really think there's a "shopping list" of countries to specifically go to war with, though there certainly is the "Axis of Evil" (perhaps New and Improved with an extra Syria in every box), which might reasonably indicate where our foreign policy attention will be drawn to next. That does not necessarily mean we will go to war with any of them, nor does it mean there is an active desire to. But there is definitely a non-zero probability that another conflict may erupt within the next 18 months, and it may indeed be due largely to the seemingly confrontational nature of the current Administration combined with the undeniable hostility of the foreign governments in question.

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by John Mace
Tars: Which 2 Arab nations? Kuwait? I wouldn't call that an invasion. Afghanistan? Not Arab.

close enough

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Yeah, I vote for Syria too. If only to scare the fear of Allah back into them. However, if France opens its yap about Syria, I wouldnt be too adverse to the idea of a few JDAMs dropped on Chiracs backyard.

ok Im just kidding about the JDAMs.




...bunker busters definitely bunker busters....

[even sven]

I would put twenty bucks on Iran.

Already, I am hearing the same things that I was hearing a year ago about Iraq. They are part of the "axis of evil". A couple weeks ago we released some sattalite photos of a suspected nuclear facility. They are being accused of seeked WMDs and of breaking UN treaties. There is no doubt in my mind that we are subtly laying the groundwork for an invasion

Bush has said many times that this war will not be over quickly. He has said many times that it will not be easy. And I believe him. He said he intends to "rid the world of evil", and thats gonna mean taking down a lot more countries than just Iraq. We no longer respect sovereignty. We have stated that we are seeking to "rid the world of evil", not to make peace. There is nothing that indicates the Iraq will be the end of it, and everything to indicate that it is not.

[Grey]

mrblue92 I have no illusions about the current US administration, or the slap dash way it tried to justify the removal of Saddam with just about every conceivable reason it could come up with aside from the true strategic ones (which I’m guessing at above).
My contention is that if you're going to start waving you arms about wildly about imminent invasions you should have something other than "I gotta feeling about this" or an article in which the reporter biases the piece with regime change in Iran and Syria. "It's time to bring down the other terror masters in the first paragraphs and buries the pentagon position (not by force) ½ to ¾ of the way down.
Iraq was a neo-conservative hot button issue for years and those very people made it into power. It was never hard to see that once they were able to steel the public to Saddam removal they would try it. Hell, I’d bet they never thought they’d get a chance.
So no, I don’t expect to see a White House memo with orders to visit Damascus. At the same time, unless we have something a little more substantial lets not assume its going to happen anyway.

[ElvisL1ves]

Grey, Iraq was only at the top of the New American Century / Likudnik neocon list; it certainly wasn't the whole list. One also cannot dismiss the other hints we've been getting lately. We do know what niceties like "I hope we could change the regimes without military force" means, too.

[Grey]

So shall we agree on prudent skepticism then?

I still don't see how they're going to do it over the next 18 months though.

[mrblue92]

Originally posted by Grey
My contention is that if you're going to start waving you arms about wildly about imminent invasions you should have something other than "I gotta feeling about this"....

So no, I don’t expect to see a White House memo with orders to visit Damascus. At the same time, unless we have something a little more substantial lets not assume its going to happen anyway.Well, I agree in that we should not assume any particular invasion/liberation/war is "imminent", but on the other hand, I don't think it's entirely out of place to speculate on potential scenarios if one felt the inclination. It is those inclinations which one would assume the OP was asking for, rather than evidence as you seemed to suggest. Perhaps I misinterpreted.

As a matter of fact, you're probably correct that the 18 month time frame is a bit short. In order for a full-blown conflict to start in that amount of time, one expects there would likely have to be some as yet unforeseen politically triggering incident, possibly in North Korea, but most probably in Iraq or somehow involving Iraq (such as Syrian or even Iranian involvement).

Eh. I still think we should go kick Stalin's corpse a few times. :p