...Is it possible? Could it be true that one of the many Machiavellian minds in the Bush Administration suggested that we attack Iraq in order to deliberately attract terrorists to a pre-ordained country, and then bomb the bejees out of them? If so, the idea seems to be gaining momentum. And now we have in Iraq's Sunni Triangle not just paid terrorists but Iraqi men who were once at least neutral, but who are now insurgents, courtesy of the U.S..
Or is it possible, as some have suggested that Iraq was selected as a staging area for a display of American power, and nothing more. Not even for the oil, or as a place to stand while protecting Israel, or for profits rewarding campaign contributors, such as giant corporations. Instead, the motivation may be compared to the way an Alpha ape, selects the smallest and least powerful ape in a rival tribe to beat to death as an example for apes who might challenge him. In an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times, I read the following interesting paragraph, "…a steely Bush, for instance, tells British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he wants to 'bring enough damage so they (terrorists) understand there is a new team here, a fundamental change in our policy."
The thing is--real wars are our specialty, rather than guerrilla fighting. It follows that it would be more to our liking to fight a real war with terrorists on another country's turf rather than let them choose the time and target, cherry pick sites on our turf, and send in suicide bombers.
I remember, by the way, that Saddam Hussein said we would find ourselves fighting street-by-street and alley-by-alley to take Bagdad , and that was before we even attacked Iraq. However, he failed to provide a date and time when the war after the war would begin. Anyway, it was dismissed as yet another airbag threat by a man whose dire warnings of stock-piled nuclear weaponry now appear more and more like those of the Wizard of Oz and his smoke and mirrors show.
4:19:30 PM 
|
|
