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?
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.
well, with mystery jets 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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…
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?
“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?
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.
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.
When exactly is all this going to happen anyway? It looks to me like several factors have to line up.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, et. al. 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?