Mideast chaos is part of the plan

March 27, 2003 12:42 PM

"Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan." This is a fascinating and disturbing article by Josh Marshall for next month's Washington Monthly, released early due to recent events. Of course, whether or not the war will destabalize the Mideast is open to debate.
posted by homunculus (68 comments total)

Here is the article by Jeffrey Bell which Marshall refers to.
posted by homunculus at 12:45 PM on March 27, 2003

The situation has already been destablilized. The question Bush had to answer was simply: are we going to be proactive or reactive. He chose to be proactive.

I undertand the point of some of the anti-war protesters that this war won't solve the problem. But to each of them, I ask, what's the better solution? Doing nothing? Nope.
Because sitting around and waiting for terrorists with WMD's from rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, et al isn't the answer.
posted by darren at 12:55 PM on March 27, 2003

Might well be. Let's look at simple things: who sponsors terror groups in the region (those groups listed by US as terror organizations): Iran, Syria, its client state Lebanon, Iraq and lots of funding out of Saudi Arabia. Now, if you are pledged to end terror threats to the US and other Western nations, what must you do? Let terror sponsoring sates know that there is a big price topayfor funding and helping terror groups. Even as I type, I note that Debka reports Syria shipping Hizbullah people into Iraq to fight the US, and that the bus that got hit by our forces carried Hebullah people out of Syia.
Now you may or may not agree with the Bush "plan" if that is what it is, but in addtion to (1)imperialism, (2) oil, (3) any other conjecture, you can also cite (now) that the administration if out to stamp out terrorism in the only way it can be done.
posted by Postroad at 12:57 PM on March 27, 2003

darren:

I undertand the point of some of the anti-war protesters that this war won't solve the problem. But to each of them, I ask, what's the better solution? Doing nothing? Nope. Because sitting around and waiting for terrorists with WMD's from rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, et al isn't the answer.

North Korea doesn't have any oil underneath it. Duh! I would just like to see a little bit of non-bullshit from the Bush admin when they write Haliburton a blank check.

(No, the U.S. isn't going to invade North Korea. We only like beating up on countries that can't put up any serious resistance.)
posted by mark13 at 1:06 PM on March 27, 2003

(No, the U.S. isn't going to invade North Korea. We only like beating up on countries that can't put up any serious resistance.)

No, it's because we don't want to see Seoul shelled back into the stone age.
posted by gyc at 1:11 PM on March 27, 2003

You're right, we are not going to invade North Korea...

A couple of well-placed air-strikes will take care of that problem.
posted by eas98 at 1:11 PM on March 27, 2003

This chicken hawk plan
was hatched
long before "fighting terra"
was the justification de jour
so let's not pretend
about that again.
Controlling the Mideast
equals controlling the oil
controlling the oil
equals having the world
by the cojones.
But "terra" will grow
and we will suffer
while the chicken hawks
are secure in their bunkers.
Ask not what
the Duhbya Cabal can do
for you.
Ask what you can do
for the Duhbya Cabal.
Give your hard earned pennies
so the wealthy may further prosper.
Give your kid's futures away
So we might be Imperialists today.
Warm bodies will soon be needed
So the war machine may continue to grind
the geographically unfortunate
into the dirt unimpeded.
posted by nofundy at 1:12 PM on March 27, 2003

Usually the term "destabilizing" is used with regards to a situation where stability initially exists.

The Middle East is not such a case. Next!
posted by clevershark at 1:17 PM on March 27, 2003

It's a Polemic Poetry Slam! Drat. Now where did I put my camo beret and MilSpec bongoes?
posted by MrBaliHai at 1:17 PM on March 27, 2003

Am I reading all this right?

The rest of the world thinks about globalization, and envisions working with other countries and expansion through different cultures.

The US thinks about globalization, and envisions a globe made more hospitable for its own interests through the invasion of other cultures.

Isn't this what the UN is supposed to be preventing?
posted by VulcanMike at 1:30 PM on March 27, 2003

the administration if out to stamp out terrorism in the only way it can be done.

War and violence are not the only way to get things done. There are no cases I know of where violence does not lead to further violence. A prime example of this is the Israeli/Palestinian history for the last 50 years. Personally I don't want to become involved in this kind of unending conflict.

Terrorism can only be addressed at its roots. We need to disassociate ourselves with violent and oppressive nations. We also need to reduce our economic dependance on these types of states. We should be accelerating our research and development of non-fossil fuel energy and systems.
posted by aaronscool at 1:33 PM on March 27, 2003

The question the article raised is not whether transforming the middle east is a good thing. I believe we all agree that democratic states are better than totalarian states that support terror. The question then is over the right way to go about this. Do we support unilateral military action by an administration that dissembles about its long-term intentions, is evasive on financial questions, fights government transparency at every opportunity, and behaves with arrogance towards our traditional allies. Around the world and for many at home in America, the Bush adminstration does not inspire trust. It inspires fear and resistance, and well it should.

There are more productive, safer, and less expensive ways to promote civil society in the Middle East.
posted by alms at 1:37 PM on March 27, 2003

But like a TV plot, the hawks' vision rests on a willing suspension of disbelief, in particular, on the premise that every close call will break in our favor: The guard will fall asleep next to the cell so our heroes can pluck the keys from his belt. The hail of enemy bullets will plink-plink-plink over our heroes' heads. And the getaway car in the driveway will have the keys waiting in the ignition. Sure, the hawks' vision could come to pass. But there are at least half a dozen equally plausible alternative scenarios that would be disastrous for us.

To begin with, this whole endeavor is supposed to be about reducing the long-term threat of terrorism, particularly terrorism that employs weapons of mass destruction. But, to date, every time a Western or non-Muslim country has put troops into Arab lands to stamp out violence and terror, it has awakened entire new terrorist organizations and a generation of recruits. Placing U.S. troops in Riyadh after the Gulf War (to protect Saudi Arabia and its oilfields from Saddam) gave Osama bin Laden a cause around which he built al Qaeda. Israel took the West Bank in a war of self-defense, but once there its occupation helped give rise to Hamas. Israel's incursion into southern Lebanon (justified at the time, but transformed into a permanent occupation) led to the rise of Hezbollah. Why do we imagine that our invasion and occupation of Iraq, or whatever countries come next, will turn out any differently?

...

Today, however, the great majority of the American people have no concept of what kind of conflict the president is leading them into. The White House has presented this as a war to depose Saddam Hussein in order to keep him from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--a goal that the majority of Americans support. But the White House really has in mind an enterprise of a scale, cost, and scope that would be almost impossible to sell to the American public. The White House knows that. So it hasn't even tried. Instead, it's focused on getting us into Iraq with the hope of setting off a sequence of events that will draw us inexorably towards the agenda they have in mind.

posted by homunculus at 1:45 PM on March 27, 2003

long before "fighting terra"
was the justification de jour


funny how "terra" in Italian means "earth"
posted by matteo at 1:51 PM on March 27, 2003

alms: well said
posted by jacobsee at 1:56 PM on March 27, 2003

Of course, whether or not the war will destabalize the Mideast is open to debate.

Yea, right.

There are more productive, safer, and less expensive ways to promote civil society in the Middle East.

Ok. And they are?

alms: well said

If you like to read the same rhetoric over and over, sure.
posted by Witty at 1:59 PM on March 27, 2003

Homunculus -- exactly. Terrorists don't need whole states to bomb us. Would it be nice for HAMAS to get their hands on an Iraqi-developed nuke? Sure. Does it matter that they haven't? Of course not.

Eventually, too late I imagine, we'll realize that all our recent actions will appear as nothing more than imperialism. This is a horrible feedback loop, continutally escalating until we strip away every freedom we cherish. Our actions will breed all new terrorist groups, new enemies and new threats at home.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:05 PM on March 27, 2003

I miss the good ol' days of the Roman Empire when hundreds of thousands would die within hours.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:05 PM on March 27, 2003

"the administration is out to stamp out terrorism in the only way it can be done."

The only way to end terrorism is to stomp on people? Funny..... I thought that was the root cause of terrorist problem.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:06 PM on March 27, 2003

"There are no cases I know of where violence does not lead to further violence."

The Japanese and Germans have been pretty quiet for the last sixty years. Just sayin'.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:08 PM on March 27, 2003

All I can say is... you guys ain't seen nothin' yet.
posted by Witty at 2:20 PM on March 27, 2003

The Japanese and Germans have been pretty quiet for the last sixty years.

You have a better chance if you follow the violence with a whole lot of cash help and some restructuring. Recent administrations keep forgetting the follow-up part.
posted by small_ruminant at 2:22 PM on March 27, 2003

What struck me was Marshall's conclusion that, once the neocons stoke the fire under the chaos pot, there will be no way to put it out quickly. Even if the American public comes to understand what's happening in US policy, disagrees, and ousts Bush, we'll be coping for years to come. (note to self, if ever running for office: hiding intentions from voters works well.)
posted by win_k at 2:38 PM on March 27, 2003

(note to self, if ever running for office: hiding intentions from voters works well.)

Yes - even if they're transparently obvious to anyone who cares to look. That which does not make it into the media does not affect elections, even if everyone knows it.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:47 PM on March 27, 2003

You're right, we are not going to invade North Korea...

A couple of well-placed air-strikes will take care of that problem.

For today's No Brains Award, we have a winner!

We're ignoring, oh, a few facts:

14,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul.
Kim Jong Il and government residing in underground bunkers buried deep enough to withstand direct hits with all but the largest nuclear weapons. Our bad boy has probably been living in one since our attempted decapitation strike in Iraq.

And there's these possiblities:

Ensuing world reaction if we use nuclear weapons pre-emptively: USA winner of most hated nation in history award.
US and Japan sure targets of unconventionally delivered North Korean nuclear weapons in response.
Add ensuing world economic collapse to mix.

The guard will fall asleep next to the cell so our heroes can pluck the keys from his belt. The hail of enemy bullets will plink-plink-plink over our heroes' heads. And the getaway car in the driveway will have the keys waiting in the ignition.

Why is there a War on Drugs but not a War on Stupidity?
posted by y2karl at 2:54 PM on March 27, 2003

Good article, it articulates both the neo-conservative position, its possible benefits and possible failures. It will be very important to understand the neo-con position when looking back on this war 10 years from now.

I agree with many of the posters that violence will not create peace. As Marshell points out, history doesn't provide many examples where an invasion doesn't lead to active resistance (read: terrorism.) Germany and Japan, while being offered as examples that prove the current US position, have very little relevance to today's problems in the middle east. For example, if the US drops a nuke on Baghdad all hell is going to break loose in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc. Japan and Germany were properly isolated after WWII, not part of a larger interlocking region. That is, Middle Eastern governments do hate Saddam, but they don't trust the US worth squat.

If we as the US want to end terrorism, we should stop participating in it.

And finally, what win_k said. Once we are in Iraq, we are going to have to push a pressure neighboring nations in order to control Iraq, meaning more wars, more invasions and more terrorism committed by both sides.

On Preview: I don't know if your being sarcastic or not, Mars, but you seem to be right. I don't understand why it seems to work that way though.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:55 PM on March 27, 2003

This isn't gonna stop terrorism. It's adding fuel to the terrorism fire. Bush & Blair are encouraging global chaos. It's like civilized society is being run by the Three Stooges. If ever there was a need to be invaded by alien spaceships, now's the time. Just so everybody on Earth would have the same thing to shoot at.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:59 PM on March 27, 2003

Good article, it articulates .. the neo-conservative position

No, it doesn't. It's an op-ed piece by someone with an agenda. It's anti-war masturbation.
posted by stbalbach at 3:00 PM on March 27, 2003

I'll admit the article's conclusions leave it slanted to the anti-war side of things, but the author tries to present a full and articulate argument. It's anti-war, but a long way from masturbation. Perhaps you had some issues with the article's premises you'd like to comment on?
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:08 PM on March 27, 2003

Right as I was saying to myself, "That plan's just crazy enough to work," I read the best part of the article:

The audacious nature of the neocons' plan makes it easy to criticize but strangely difficult to dismiss outright. Like a character in a bad made-for-TV thriller from the 1970s, you can hear yourself saying, "That plan's just crazy enough to work."



On North Korea: A couple of well-placed air-strikes will take care of that problem.

It will take care of some portion of NK as a military threat. The cultural/economic problems of NK? And their interaction with SK? Hardly.

On Hiding Intentions: (note to self, if ever running for office: hiding intentions from voters works well.)

I don't know that the hawks had Bush's ear until Sep 11. That's what it would seem, anyway, despite the groundwork of the plans going back to the early 90's.

But at any rate, you don't have to "hide" much from the general public. The national security strategy has been sitting on the whitehouse home page for over six months. I know 1 other person who's read it. And if you pay attention to Bush's speeches, he's telegraphing the plan, even while playing up WMDs and the threat of Hussein.

The sad truth is that most people don't pay attention. I'm pretty mad at the Hollywood crowd, too. They had the soapbox to make people pay attention, and as a friend of mine said (the 1 who'd read the NSS doc), "they wasted it on 'dis' instead of 'discussion.'"
posted by namespan at 3:14 PM on March 27, 2003

If we as the US want to end terrorism, we should stop participating in it.

Hardy Har Har.

Credibility status - none
posted by Witty at 3:22 PM on March 27, 2003

Hell yes, namespan.

I've read the NSS too, and it scared the snot out of me. At anti-war rallies and meetings I keep trying to make people aware of neo-conservativism and its well documented intentions. They all just give me blank looks and go back to making their "No Blood For Oil" stencils.

OT/
One problem I see in the Anti-War movement is a lack of understanding of why we are going to war in the first place. They seem convinced that Bush and Co. are trying to make money off Iraqi oil. The truth is far fuzzier and far more frightening.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:24 PM on March 27, 2003

It's anti-war, but a long way from masturbation

The very premise of the article is %100 fantasy. It starts out with a hypothetical ending scenario and then leaps to a hypothetical conclusion. It asks us to suspend belief and go along with the authors premise. I'm not sure how to define journalistic (?) masturbation but when its fantasy that was my point. Perhaps fiction would be a better term, fiction disguised as fact. It's a well written article and entertaining kind of like a movie is entertaining.
posted by stbalbach at 3:34 PM on March 27, 2003

No, it doesn't. It's an op-ed piece by someone with an agenda. It's anti-war masturbation.

Good lord stbalbach. Josh Marshall is far from "anti-war", which you'd discover if you care to peruse his well written blog.

And of course it's fiction: he's writing about possibilities for the future. You can argue why you think he's wrong about what will come to pass, or you can continue to bad mouth it in the exact manner that homunculus' Onion link satirizes.
posted by pitchblende at 3:42 PM on March 27, 2003

"It's anti-war masturbation."

Now that's a win-win if I ever heard one.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:44 PM on March 27, 2003

I'd say the premise is pretty much rooted in reality. Neo-conseratives are very real. It is also undebatable that neo-conservative ideas are influencing US foriegn policy.pdf

posted by elwoodwiles at 3:47 PM on March 27, 2003

Remember Laurie Garrett's little email?

- If the U.S. unilaterally goes to war, and it is anything short of a quick surgical strike (lasting less than 30 days), the economists were all predicting extreme economic gloom: falling dollar value, rising spot market oil prices, the Fed pushing interest rates down towards zero with resulting increase in national debt, severe trouble in all countries whose currency is guaranteed agains the dollar (which is just about everybody except the EU), a near cessation of all development and humanitarian programs for poor countries. Very few economists or ministers of finance predicted the world getting out of that economic funk for minimally five-10 years, once the downward spiral ensues.

Enemy will take risks and seek a close, dirty war.
Military Briefing by General Wesley Clark

I posted this in Postroad's little post up there but it belonged here.
posted by y2karl at 3:52 PM on March 27, 2003

this just in:

Syria Mufti calls for suicide operations
posted by victors at 3:53 PM on March 27, 2003

masturbation... war.... wargasm?

like, when wolf blitzer is ... well ... seeing destruction ?

*shrug*
posted by y0bhgu0d at 3:56 PM on March 27, 2003

The Japanese and Germans have been pretty quiet for the last sixty years

Aside from the massive reconstruction efforts we footed the bill for post WW2 you must be forgetting who was the aggressor in that conflict.

In both cases German and Japan went on massive invasion campaigns prior to our entering the war. I'd say in this case yes, violence did lead to further violence and it took tens of thousands of civilian casualties to end the war with Japan.
posted by aaronscool at 4:15 PM on March 27, 2003

I guess we can set the Laurie Garrett Meltdown Countdown Clock at 22 days and counting. Kinda like the self-disabling function on downloaded 'trial' software.
posted by wendell at 4:34 PM on March 27, 2003

Of course, whether or not the war will destabalize the Mideast is open to debate.

Yea, right.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:35 PM on March 27, 2003

Enemy will take risks and seek a close, dirty war.

Bah. They don't stand a chance with Bush personally leading the attack!
posted by homunculus at 4:37 PM on March 27, 2003

elwood: It will be very important to understand the neo-con position when looking back on this war 10 years from now.

Looking back? You girls and boys are in this for the duration aren't you? Or were you planning to skip out about 20 years early? These transformations take a generation at least: vis Cypress, Japan, Germany, Vietnam (ongoing), etc...

Ten years is hardly begun.
posted by bonehead at 4:40 PM on March 27, 2003

Since the Battle of Baghdad will be anything but a quick surgical strike , wendell, I think you safely can take a couple of weeks' worth of days off that clock...
posted by y2karl at 4:40 PM on March 27, 2003

"I think the regime of Saddam Hussein is far weaker than most people believe, and what it would take to topple it is a tiny fraction of what was necessary to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991." - richard perle October 2001


In a brief telephone conversation with a reporter today before the Defense Department announcement, Mr. Perle sounded angry. Asked whether he had resigned, he replied: "Let me just tell you something. If I had, you'd be the last person in the world I'd want to talk to." He then hung up. - March 27 2003


good riddance (well .. wishful thinking.. if only were rid of this creep for good.)
posted by specialk420 at 4:49 PM on March 27, 2003

No, y2, Laurie set the timer at 30 days from the start of the war before the economic meltdown starts in earnest, now we're down to 22. (I hate having to explain jokes) While a "quagmire scenario" is likely to become apparent before then, I'm going to expect the Davos hivemind quoted there to be pretty close to the money. Besides, a CountdownClock might be a fun thing to put on all our blogs, next to the Body Count, Alert Level and CelebrityRibbon boxes. (That's another joke!)

On preview: It was only a matter of tme until Perle was discovered to be less of an idealogue and more of a war profiteer getting rich on World Chaos. No, it's not about the oil, but it's always about the money.
posted by wendell at 5:04 PM on March 27, 2003

If (AlQueda/Iraq alliance) was formed after 9/11 and after Bush started calling regime change in Iraq, then it reinforces the doves' argument that we have helped to bring them together. Bears repeating, homunc.

Also a report I recall a few days before the war claimed that U.S. Intelligence had figured out that Saddam was keeping his WMD's in small towns near the Syrian border, which is a great place to pass them on to all kinda terrorist types when Saddy couldn't keep them anymore. So, will our War-To-End-All-Wars v.17.1 end up putting bad stuff in the hands of even worse people? Stay tuned!

As for me, I've gotten so cynical that I've started thinking the neocons in power are trying to bring on more terrorist attacks so they can have an excuse to cancel the '04 elections. (Gee, participating in an 'IraqFilter' thread is so cleansing! Kinda like a high colonic!)

(Have I just scared all the cool kids right outa this thread?)
posted by wendell at 5:36 PM on March 27, 2003

I got the joke, wendell, was just sayin'...
posted by y2karl at 5:36 PM on March 27, 2003

"Because sitting around and waiting for terrorists with WMD's from rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, et al isn't the answer."

And here i thought that the 9/11 attacks originated in Saudi Arabia - a country where we already have a large US military presence.

Silly me.

And if Iraq is full of WoMD, why isn't Hussein using them against the invasion?
posted by spazzm at 5:38 PM on March 27, 2003

On a similar tip to the Laurie Garrett comment,

War Threatens Economic Recovery, I.M.F. Says
posted by y2karl at 5:48 PM on March 27, 2003

"As for me, I've gotten so cynical that I've started thinking the neocons in power are trying to bring on more terrorist attacks so they can have an excuse to cancel the '04 elections."

Don't be so cynical, this may actually happen.

Remember this comment, and come back in 2004. Metafilter should have a time capsule feature.

(PS; add metafilter to the spell checker.)
posted by CrazyJub at 5:59 PM on March 27, 2003

... And now the Bush doctrine is a doctrine of preventive war, which makes America the self-appointed world’s judge, jury and executioner. However benign the motives, it’s bound to have a corrupting effect on our leadership. I think the whole notion of America as the world’s judge, jury and executioner is a tragically mistaken notion.

Arthur M. Schlesinger

about the Perle thing: I suppose Sy Hersh is celebrating, tonight.
posted by matteo at 6:02 PM on March 27, 2003

And here i thought that the 9/11 attacks originated in Saudi Arabia

Shhh. That's still classified.

And speaking of things that are classified: Bush tightens document secrecy rules.
posted by homunculus at 6:08 PM on March 27, 2003

Aside from the massive reconstruction efforts we footed the bill for post WW2 you must be forgetting who was the aggressor in that conflict.

Hitler didn't attack the United States, but he got his derriere handed to him anyway. Japan was running roughshod over the Pacific well before Pearl Harbor.

Hussein was the sole aggressor in the Gulf war which he lost spectacularly, and can't seem to follow rules to which he agreed. That's all.
posted by hama7 at 6:39 PM on March 27, 2003

? “The bane of ideology,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in his 1986 book “The Cycles of American History,” “is that it exalts abstractions over human beings. It impoverishes our sense of reality, and it impoverishes our imagination, too.”
posted by y2karl at 8:28 PM on March 27, 2003

This Josh Marshall piece is merely a rehash of his June 2002 piece which said exactly the same thing. Marshall was on target then, too. But he pulls some punches. I've been thinking about this issue for about month....

Sen. Bob Graham (co-chair of the Senate Foreign Intelligence committee) suggested that there would be Hezbollah attacks in the US should the US invade Iraq. Of course. Humans, en masse, are somewhat predictable.

A polarized, terrorized US will well serve the interests of Perle and Co. Why not regional war, and suppression of the US left too?
posted by troutfishing at 8:39 PM on March 27, 2003

Hitler didn't attack the United States

No he attacked our allies France and England and then threatened US ships sailing to and from England.
posted by aaronscool at 11:19 PM on March 27, 2003

Good call, Troutfishing. The more terrorized we are, the better the chance we will go right along with the sort of thing outlined in Marshall's essay. We might even permit ourselves to be honest about our intentions, instead of hiding behind the bullshit we do now.

And, of course, Bush would be re-elected in a landslide in '04 if we've had one or three more September 11ths by then. Even though you could plausibly make the case that his administration's policies encourages those attacks.
posted by kgasmart at 7:38 AM on March 28, 2003

Despite the administration’s most recent play for secrecy, I take back what I said about hiding one’s intentions from the voting public. Namespan’s right that Bush’s support for neoconservatism didn’t emerge until after the election. I can say all I want about how Bush’s campaign created a misimpression about how he’d handle foreign affairs, but I don’t know the President well enough to judge what was a gleam in his eye back then, so maybe he wasn’t hiding anything. Heck, plenty of Bush’s actions were not clearly spelled out during his campaign.

But about the need to hide the big picture from voters: there’s no need to hide it, because most people can’t or won’t string the pieces together for themselves. Sure, people who care will seek out available source documents like the NSS and make their own judgments. But others have a short-term orientation, resist ideas that rattle their own status quo, and don't mind being fed conclusions. That’s one of the reasons Bush’s “fait accompli” political strategizing works so well.

Another little piece supporting the new big picture, quoted from Rumsfeld’s Rules, circa January 2001: “If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it.” (Dwight D. Eisenhower)
posted by win_k at 8:24 AM on March 28, 2003

Maybe this is a good place for an H.L. Mencken quote, too: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and thus clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Ours aren’t entirely imaginary, but…
posted by win_k at 8:27 AM on March 28, 2003

I've come to the conclusion that if it doesn't fit into a 2 or 3 word summary the general population won't be interested in hearing it.

This is the power of the neo-con talk radio and TV. The answers offered by these folks seems to be along the lines of "Cut Taxes", "Liberal Media" and "Bomb Iraq" without much more depth.
posted by aaronscool at 9:41 AM on March 28, 2003

Related: Rumsfeld Warns Syria: We Goin' Kick Your Ass (paraphrased)
posted by soyjoy at 11:33 AM on March 28, 2003

'After Baghdad, Yangon'
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on March 28, 2003

I've gotten so cynical that I've started thinking the neocons in power are trying to bring on more terrorist attacks so they can have an excuse to cancel the '04 elections.

I think this is an actual possibilty. The neo-cons seem more then willing to create more terrorism and destroy both the American and the global economies since this will allow them to consolidate their power. Even if we get to have an "election" in 2004 it's liable to be even more rigged then our "election" in 2000. 2¢.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:30 PM on March 28, 2003

Witty, what is the credibility status of the 'Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, a U.S. taxpayer- funded "school" which trains Latin American soldiers in combat, counterinsurgency, military intelligence, counter-narcotics and commando operations.'Search text for 'School of the Assasins'.
'Thus the creation of a bureaucracy practising systematic human rights violation will often include external 'liveware', e.g., the various foreign technical advisers, counter-insurgency and low intensity conflict strategists, paramilitary, intelligence and internal security police as well as the 'white collar mercenaries' who act as key technical operators in any administrative policy of repression. '
From 'AN APPRAISAL OF TECHNOLOGIES
OF POLITICAL CONTROL', a working document from the European Parliament.
Some other issues around US foreign policy tend to chafe as well.
sorry about the partially overlapping links
posted by asok at 3:06 PM on March 28, 2003

Arabs Shocked at Rumsfeld's Syria Threat
posted by homunculus at 8:42 PM on March 29, 2003

asok... that's all well and good (and certainly a fine post). I just don't appreciate the way the term terrorism is tossed around so loosely in an effort to make some "brilliant point". It's not clever. It doesn't "open our eyes to the truth", etc. Don't pretend that terrorism has a broader definition than what it is. That's all I'm saying.
posted by Witty at 11:12 AM on March 30, 2003