Skip to main content

View Diary: I Know Who's Talking to the Washington Post (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not sure I agree on the two versions. (none)
    But, in any event, if one considers that Iraq was no threat before the invasion, then the rejection of the past strategy, based on the assumption that a first strike could be "absorbed" and retaliated against successfully, leads to the question of where the strike is going to come from.  It wasn't Iraq then and it isn't Iraq now, even if the country has become a magnet for a host of minor terrorists.

    The answer, I would argue, is China.  Going into Iraq it was expected that the demonstration of US prowess would act as a warning to other nuclear powers (specifically China, Russia, India, little Pakistan) that they had better not mess with us.
    This is the expectation that the un-named source for the WaPo story now considers unrealistic.

    But, what he's still not addressing is the other half of the scenario--the real reason for going into Iraq.  Because the real reason all along was to establish a PERMANENT US presence on the Arabian Peninsula, a series of military bases on which our nuclear weapons would reside unchallenged and make it clear to the nuclear powers in the area, that any effort to launch their arsenal in the US direction would be countered on the spot.

    The question that Rummy and his cohorts do not want asked or answered is "what did the US want from Saddam Hussein that he didn't let them have, despite the bribes in the eighties, the defeat in Kuwait, the threats in the nineties and, finally, the determination to depose him?"
    Why is the US surprised that the various factions in Iraq are not in favor of a strong federal government regulating a federal system?  Because they were sure that once Saddam was gone, the new government would let them have their bases.  If the territory is carved up into autonomous regions, the US is unlikely to get the bases it wants, if only because the Sunni and the Shiites cannot agree to a permanent Western presence on Arab soil.
    As the dictator of a secular government, Saddam Hussein could have done it, but he knew his people would not put up with having the infidels in their midst.  This truth the anonymous source for the WaPo story seems not to have absorbed.

    3-D Republicans=division, deceit, debt

    by hannah on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site