Replies

TGS, I've read many of your posts on this topic, and they are indeed well thought out. But something always seems to be "missing" to me regarding this. I just do not see how the approach Bush has taken regarding Iraq is consistent with the concepts in your hypothesis: namely that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11, the anthrax attacks, and has anthrax pre-positioned in the US waiting to be released. The idea that this entire military buildup is a bluff, just seems to be the absolute worst possible political and military strategy they could have come up with to deal with this situation. What could the possible outcomes be? Absent some "lucky break" like a coup, everything is suddenly called off and the troops recalled? The UN, France and Germany, and the "peace movement" would be dramatically empowered. Bush would be dead politically, and would essentially have resigned himself to the fact that he was leaving this problem to president Kerry or Lieberman to handle. Could it possibly be that the national security apparatus has not made Bush aware of these facts, and he is launching this war "in the dark", only to face a major domestic anthrax attack? Once again, he would be dead politically if this were to occur, being seen as having launched the war while unprepared to protect the homeland.

It seems to me that it would have been easy to go with an alternate strategy on Iraq. He could have essentially conducted an intense "covert war" against Iraq, rather then staking his entire presidency on this pursuit of a bluffed "hot war". The risk there would have been that the same AQ proxies would have launched a wider anthrax attack on the US because of the covert war, but at that point, Bush would have to be prepared to come clean on everything, finger Iraq for that attack, and use any means necessary to fight back. In the aftermath of a wide scale anthrax attack on the US, he would have had overwhelming support.

What if we suppose that this framing the war in the context of Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions is just a delaying tactic by Bush, in order to buy time to try and root out the domestic threat?

I keep wondering why, in light of 9/11, and that fact that we are waging war against terrorism, Bush is using 12 year old excuses for a war with Iraq. The easiest way to win support for this war would be to tie Saddam to 9/11, and claim that Saddam supported and still supports terrorism.

Any other reason for war against Iraq invites resistence.

The idea that this entire military buildup is a bluff, just seems to be the absolute worst possible political and military strategy they could have come up with to deal with this situation.

It isn't a bluff. The forces aren't going anywhere. This is a hostage situation. We are the hostages. The sheriff has the hostage taker's hideout surrounded. The squad cars and the SWAT teams will stay there in position until the standoff ends -- however it ends and whenever it ends.