John Steinbeck, writing about a hideous feud he'd been drawn into with a pair of neighborhood birds, wrote that he thought most wars were largely accidental and had a tendency to spread into unforeseen directions.
I wish the ostensibly omniscient members of the Bush National Security apparatus had read more Steinbeck. Perhaps they might have taken this advice to heart.
"Unforeseen directions", he said. Let's take stock of where we are right now. A war that was supposed, because of Iraq's enormous oil reserves, to pay for itself, is cost America over $200 billion and counting.
A people that were supposed to welcome us as liberators with open arms, turned out to resent us for starving them for 12 years, then disdain us for allowing their country to go unpoliced, and eventually came to hate us as ethnic infighting within the country became uncontrollable.
Unforeseen directions.
Ignoring military experts, we sent in 100,000 troops to take out Sadam and install a bank swindler who appears at the same time to have been an Iranian corroborator as new head of the Iraqi state, and then get the hell out. As of yet, we still haven't.
Unforeseen directions.
From the Washington Times today, we find an interesting piece discussing the administration's possible plans for invading Syria now.
New York, NY, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- Bush administration hard-liners have been considering launching selected military strikes at insurgent training camps in Syria and border-crossing points used by Islamist guerrillas to enter Iraq in an effort to bolster security for the upcoming elections, according to former and current administration officials...
Some former and serving U.S. intelligence officials who have usually been opposed to any expansion of U.S. military activities in the region are expressing support for such strikes.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official told United Press International, "I don't usually find myself in sympathy with the Bush neo-cons, but I think there is enough fire under this smoke to justify such action."
Referring to the escalating attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iraqi insurgents, he added, "Syria is complicit in the (anti-U.S.) insurgency up to its eyeballs."
"Syria is the No. 1 crossing point" for guerrillas entering Iraq," Gary Gambill, editor of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, said. He added that Damascus "does nothing about it."
Jeez. Unforeseen directions.
Is this realistic? Ehh...Probably not.
But are the hawks likely to get their strikes?
Former CIA Syria expert, Martha Kessler doesn't think so. "I don't think the administration can afford to destabilize another country in the region," she said.
Kessler pointed out that Syria has tried, often in vain, to cooperate with the United States, only to be either snubbed or ignored.
According to Kesssler, Syria offered to station U.S. forces on its soil before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Syrians have also opened their intelligence books that identify assets in Europe, including front companies, to the administration in an attempt to help track down al-Qaida.
But Kessler said a chief reason for not moving against Damascus is that any strikes would "destabilize Lebanon," where the Lebanese Hezbollah movement awaits orders from Iran before launching retaliations against Israeli attacks.
"Damascus is not the heartbeat of this Iraqi insurgent movement," she said.
However, one administration official said, "We have got one hell of a problem."
Unforeseen directions.
And here's the biggest one of all--at least for our arrogant President, anyway.
Iraq Survey Group concludes dictator
destroyed weapons years before invasion
Julian Borger in Washington and Jonathan Steele
Thursday January 13, 2005
The Guardian
The US investigators searching for Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction have given up the hunt and left Iraq with an appeal to the Pentagon for the release of several Iraqi scientists still being questioned, it was reported yesterday.
Charles Duelfer, who led the Iraq Survey Group, has returned to the US and will deliver a final report in the spring that will be almost identical to the interim assessment he delivered to Congress last October.
That assessment found Saddam had destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than 10 years ago, and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the second Gulf war.
And what was his response to this. Let's read.
Bush told Walters, "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction -- like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So, therefore: one, we need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering. ... Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power."
When asked if the war was worth it even if there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."
Our basic reason for entering was completely incorrect, but invading was--after all the money wasted and lives needlessly lost--"absolutely" still worth it. That answer, if nothing else, definitely came from an unforseen direction.
MoralQuestionsBlog.com