Decius wrote:

] The administration comes clean about its motives. Stratfor has
] been mostly dead on, if this story is correct. They apparently
] stop short of supporting the neo-conservatives, although in
] what way its not exactly clear.

To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

...

No. It's a result of the nitwit logic of GW Bush: You're either with me or you're against me. How much sense does it make for America to showcase democracy by taking out governments that America doesn't happen to fancy?

...

But what if Sept. 11 had never happened? Would the United States have gone to war with Iraq? Administration officials and others say no, at least not now.

The Bush administration could probably have lived with the threat of Saddam and might have gone after him eventually if, for example, the Iraqi leader had become more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear program or in sponsoring terrorism.

But again, Sept. 11 changed all that.

...

That's probably one reason why they let 9/11 happen, but Iraq was on the drawing board before that time. I'll take "no, at least not now" to mean "yes."

...

It seems to have improved the behavior of the Syrians and maybe the Iranians, they said, although there is still concern that Iran will meddle in Iraq. And it may have even put some fear in the North Koreans, they added. Plus, they said it probably has helped the Middle East peace process.

...

It's also serving to set the example that pre-emptive war is A-OK. Noticed India's saber rattling lately? They're citing America's example.

Hijexx wrote:
] How much sense does it
] make for America to showcase democracy by taking out
] governments that America doesn't happen to fancy?

Really stupid wording by dumb journalist. They are showcasing force and will, not democracy.

] It's also serving to set the example that pre-emptive war is
] A-OK. Noticed India's saber rattling lately? They're citing
] America's example.

The negative long terms effects are numerous. The one you mention is a key problem with all of this. Another is the impact this is all having on the minds of young people in the region. The latter can be (must be) dealt with. The former I think will come back to haunt us.

Decius wrote:

] Really stupid wording by dumb journalist. They are showcasing
] force and will, not democracy.

I'm still looking for good journalism, I've almost given up :)

] The negative long terms effects are numerous. The one you
] mention is a key problem with all of this. Another is the
] impact this is all having on the minds of young people in the
] region. The latter can be (must be) dealt with. The former I
] think will come back to haunt us.

Yeah, I just think the blowback will be pretty bad. Any rumblings on Stratfor about how we intend on dealing with that?

] Yeah, I just think the blowback will be pretty bad. Any
] rumblings on Stratfor about how we intend on dealing with
] that?

Well for one, several people predicted that we would pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and we have... This is significant as SA is mecca and there are those that oppose our presence there for purely religious reasons. Also, the UK has been making noises about readdressing the Israel/Palestinian issue. They've actually admitted some western responsbility for the way things are, and have made rumblings about getting involved... You might watch developments vis-a-vis the parlimentary elections in Palestine for some information... (None of this is from stratfor... Their post war analysis was posted to Interesting People, but its mostly about pressures from Syria and Iran...)