There was the following piece in the Washington Post today. It is an interesting theory on the bigger objectives that the administration refuses to discuss openly.

The theory is that by forcing/coercing/tricking the American public into this war with Iraq, the administration commits us to a much bigger and more dangerous enterprise. The reordering of regimes throughout the middle east to try and gain a political/diplomatic environment that is more to our favor.

The writer likens it to:

Interesting read.

Hornets and Hawks

I take it as a given that the Iraqi (mis)adventure is just the start of the Ruling Junta's attempt at Pax Americana. Next on the hit list: Iran. After that: Syria, Jordan and so on. The demonizing of Iran has already begun. The fact that they are slowly moving away from a theocracy and have a reformist at the helm means nothing. There's a grand plan to all this, as articulated by the Project for a New American Century think tank/cabal.

Once we're in a state of continuous war (shades of 1984), it'll be easier to gut civil rights, environmental protections, anti-business legislation etc. because people will be too busy buying gas masks and duct tape to worry such trivialities.

Interesting article, nonetheless.

[ March 31, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I have noticed a disturbing trend on many news programs. There have been several "mentions" of the Iranian quest for nuclear weapon development. I find it interesting that in the middle of the total fixation on Iraq, that this story is surfacing. I am assuming there is a reason.

As I stated in another thread, if I were an Iranian, I would be concerned that my country is about to be surrounded by US ground forces.

I can only pray every day that this travesty is brought to an end by the American people before it gets too far out of hand. If nothing else, we will have an opportunity to vote this to an end in a year and a half. God be with us.

The real reasons for the war may be both simpler and more complex.

Simpler because they can be summed up in a one word: selfishness.

More complex because many different individuals may want the same thing (the conquest of Iraq) but for different reasons.

The most important individual in that group is President Bush. I believe his primary motivation is a threat against his father by Saddam Hussein. I think it may be this personalization of the entire enterprise that explains his single-minded commitment.

Perhaps an assassination attempt by his father (as head of the CIA or as president) against Hussein failed. Hussein who exhibits the personality of a traditional desert warlord would have responded in a personal manner and attempted to assassinate his attacker. The son would in retribution attempt to avenge the attack on his father. he would also interpret the downed plane in west Pennsylvania as an attempt upon his life.

Given the fear generated in three people who see the world in those terms and the support of others with similar intentions though different motives, it might explain the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves.

The rhetoric is escalating now with Iraq's neighbor and fellow Arab country and supporter Syria, whose foreign minister, I believe (I may have his title wrong) called for the "defeat" of the American troops.

This is outrageous and he should be sacked. Nearly all the Arab countries--except Kuwait and publicly Saudi Arabia--are strongly against the U.S.'s intervention in Iraq, but NONE have called for our defeat. They have allowed fanatical clerics and hundreds of thousands of citizens to express these views as a stopgap measure, but none--not even crazy-ass Arafat--has gone so far.

Syria really ought to watch out. I think we all realize that perpetual war is likely, as we are now engaged in four wars--in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Colombia, in the Phillippines--and with several more 100,000 troops, the U.S. could very easily roll towards Damascus. I don't think Syria has the army or manpower that Iraq has, and Israel has demonstrated more than once that it could singlehandedly defeat Syria.

I do NOT want the U.S. to go to war with Syria, but if that regime actively attacks or harms our troops in Iraq, then we really may begin to see the sort of widespread Middle East war scenarios that Perle, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Cheney and others are salivating over.

I think it makes more sense to go after smaller, weaker Syria next. With Syria and, by association, Lebanon, neutralized it will be much easier to impose a settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and liquidate terrorist cells functioning out of both countries (some largely financed by the Iranian theocrats). There's no need to go after Jordan. The government is already on board. The large, restive, Palestinian population in Jordan will be easier to pacify once these other issues are settled. As for Iran, it seems the ground work is already being laid to bring about regime change through internal manipulation. This won't come about overnight, but eventually.

So, when do we go after Saudi Arabia, which, after all, is the Middle East's primary (and largest) sponsor of Al Queda and other terrorist cells?

Even though it may not be an "occupation" per se, the people in the Middle East will certainly think and feel that way and act like they are under U.S. rule, and that is something that will need to be defused right off the bat. Sure the Iraqis want us to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but then they want us to get right out afterwards so that they can establish their own rule.

This is an excellent column from England's The Guardian about 3 scenarios that could play out in Iraq.