Posted on 08/02/2002 6:53:33 AM PDT by Pokey78
Welcome to August, or as we in the newspaper business call it "the silly season," because nothing important ever happens in August, unless you count the outbreak of the First World War (August 1914), the greatest financial crisis in the history of the British Empire (August 1931), the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact heralding the Second World War (August 1939), the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 1945), the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (August 1968), the only Presidential resignation in American history (August 1974), etc., etc.
What sort of August are we in for this year? Another desultory month like August 2001, its lethargy nicely captured by the otherwise ferociously busy Martha Stewart Living calendar? ("August 14: If it rains, organize basement.") Or something more explosive?
Stop me if you've heard this one before, but on Monday the London newspaper Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reported that al-Qaeda were planning a spectacular series of attacks for August, after which terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden would appear in a new video.
This doesn't entirely square with the other reported development of the week -- that al-Qaeda is now being run by Osama's 20-year old son, Scott bin Laden. No, hang on a minute, Scott's the name of Dr. Evil's son. If you've seen Goldmember, you'll know that Scott does indeed wind up taking over his dad's evil operation. It couldn't be that al-Qaeda have been reduced to taking inspiration from Austin Powers, could it? Anyway, just for the record, Osama bin Evil's son is called Saad, and I'd be saad if I found out I'd inherited a business whose principal asset was the executive latrine at Sub-Basement Level 14 in Tora Bora. But, as readers will recall, I said a couple of months back that the old has-bin was pushing up daisycutter bits in the Hindu Kush and I don't figure we'll be seeing him on video again unless he's dancing with Fred Astaire in a new Dirt Devil commercial.
Meanwhile, what of Washington's own spectacular series of attacks? I had war with Iraq tentatively scheduled for sometime between the G8 summit and the anniversary of September 11th. The New York Times and The Washington Post have spent the last few weeks running their hugely entertaining Leak Of The Day features, each with a brand-new top-secret plan revealing how the Pentagon intends to invade Iraq from bases in Jordan/Qatar/Diego Garcia/Sarnia with a three-pronged strike/two-pronged strike/radical no-prong strike using a broad spatula approach with plans for post-war reconstruction (the prong is ended but the military lingers on). Who knew there were so many ways to attack Iraq? How does August 11th work for you? Say, 3 p.m. Eastern?
Don Rumsfeld wrote a tough internal memo demanding the leaks cease, only to have the memo leaked to The Los Angeles Times. Poor old Saddam, who'd wanted to spend this summer on his fourth romantic novel (when he's not gassing Kurds, he's the Barbara Cartland of Baghdad), is instead having to wrap his head round dozens of tedious New York Times analyses of in-depth war plans while trying to bring his ebola factory on-stream before the end of the week.
Sadly, a U.S. invasion of Iraq "would threaten the whole stability of the Middle East" -- or so Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, told the BBC on Tuesday. Amr, Amr, Amr. Your talking-points are missing the point: it's supposed to destabilize the Middle East. The stability of the Middle East is unique in the non-democratic world and it's the lack of change in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt that's turned them into a fetid swamp of terrorist bottom-feeders.
First things first: It's not strictly necessary for a new regime in Iraq to be better than its predecessor, only different. That sends the important message that whose fingernails you rip out in the dungeon of the Presidential palace is your affair but start monkeying with us and you've written your last bodice-ripper. That's the first and critical Anglo-American war aim.
But if a more or less civilized regime were to take over in Baghdad, it would have a tremendously destabilizing effect. By "civilized," I'm thinking no higher than a General Musharraf type, someone who's not genocidal and has greater ambitions for the treasury than the anthrax program. Were a local Musher to surface, he'd quickly be pumping an extra couple million gallons of oil a day and thus adding to the woes of the House of Saud, for whom low gas prices means rethinking the gold-plated toilet in your pad on the Riviera. The Saudis have figured that out, which is why they want the old Saddamite to stay in power indefinitely. Hence, the hilarious story in yesterday's National Post:
"Islamic extremists are threatening to take control of Saudi Arabia's corrupt and autocratic regime, fuelling fears in Washington that the United States might lose its most powerful Muslim ally in the war against Islamic terrorism.
"Despite brutal suppression of any public dissent, anti-government demonstrations have swept the kingdom in recent months to protest the pro-American stance of Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler."
The way to find out what this story really means is to hold it up to the mirror and read it backwards. First, and most obviously, Saudi Arabia is not America's "most powerful Muslim ally in the war against Islamic terrorism," but the principal underwriter and fomenter of Islamic terrorism. Second, Crown Prince Abdullah is not "pro-American," but, compared to the ailing King Fahd, noticeably antipathetic and unco-operative. Third, anti-government demonstrations "sweeping" the kingdom? C'mon then: Name one. Where and when?
Now, there are certainly unstable regimes in that part of the world -- the Ayatollahs in Iran are loading up the steamer trunks -- and life expectation among the Saudi Royal Family has taken a sudden turn for the worse. Three princes have died within a week: on July 22nd, Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz (owner of the champion racehorse War Emblem) had a fatal heart attack at the age of 43; on July 23rd, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, died in a car accident on the way to the funeral; on July 29th, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, 25, was found dead in the desert from "thirst." I'd put money on War Emblem, but what are the odds on that trifecta?
I'm certainly willing to believe there's a struggle going on in the House of Saud between those who are actively pro al-Qaeda and those who'd rather buy 'em off -- there are no "pro-American" elements in any meaningful sense -- but, much as I'd like it, the Saudi powder keg is not about to blow. The Post's account drew heavily on a story in Britain's Observer on Sunday, which was looking pretty ropey by Monday. "The condition of the King, in hospital in Switzerland, is 'unstable,' " reported The Observer. In fact, he was there for a cataract operation, which seems to have gone swimmingly.
The Observer's source was most likely Arabists in the British Foreign Office who rarely miss an opportunity to give the House of Saud the full Monica. And I wouldn't mind waging the Lawrence of Arabia fetishists got it direct from the horse owner's mouth -- Prince Abdullah. Abdullah needs a diversion to stall the Iraqi invasion. His ludicrous Palestinian "peace plan" did a dandy job this spring, his "Saudi collapse imminent" scare is designed to take care of the summer and fall. But it's not true: The House of Saud will collapse after the fall of Saddam, not before.
So here's the likely schedule: pencil in Iraq this August, Saudi Arabia next August. How bad will the Iraqi war get? I see Bill Clinton told his audience in Toronto this week that, if Saddam's boys ever crossed the Israeli border, "I would personally get in a ditch, grab a rifle, and fight and die." The Toronto crowd applauded wildly, in acknowledgment of a true knee-slapper. "In Surprise Move, Clinton Enlists": now that's a silly-season story.
Sounds like shortly after sunset in Baghdad.
But the next new moon is August 8th.
ROFL!
I always though that claims of spitting things on computer monitors were bogus. Until now. I almost choked to death on a blueberry muffin. Please add me to the Steyn ping list.
vollmond
You're right... I forgot that.
LOL
Works for me.
First things first: It's not strictly necessary for a new regime in Iraq to be better than its predecessor, only different.
Sodamn Insane knows this. Only the panty-waists in the State Dept. and the NYT are wringing hands over it.
...but this technique was patented by some obscene website and was not originally used for, ah, war...
Prior art. Bill Murray in "Stripes".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.