warblog

Okay so here's my take on the war. Yes Saddam is a dictator who has done many, many bad things. Should the US be the ones to go in and remove him? I'm not entirely convinced there. But since we're there already that's a moot point. Pre-emptive strike to prevent future domestic terrorism, well I can begrudgingly accept this only because it's pretty much accepted that we will have more terrorist attacks. But that means when we're done with Iraq, we have to take on other "terrorist-supporting nations”. Iraq is small potatoes compared to the likes of Iran, Syria, even North Korea, which is an entirely different can of worms there. My prediction, we will take Baghdad, but Saddam is actually long gone, fled to Jordan. We will then set up a government in Iraq, talk about possibly lifting the sanctions, and "give back the oil" (of course with the help of US petroleum companies). Then while the dems say "okay you got regime change, now get out" the economy will still be sputtering, and there will be a terrorist attack somewhere in the US. It will probably not be a plane crash, maybe a car bomb or something, (the evildoers are not going to try the same trick twice), and the public will say "hey, we took care of Saddam why did this happen" and we will be on the cusp of the dreaded quagmire. Because in the minds of much of Americans Saddam=terrorism and thus no Saddam=no terrorism. Although this is totally non sequitur, the same people who think Saddam=9/11 think this. All in all it's looking pretty grim people. more later