Replies

Well, let's see:

Dukakis wins in '88 - so in '90:

1. Saddam successfully invades Kuwait. No effort to stop him.

2. Terrified, every Gulf state tries to ally with him.

3. Syria jumps on the bandwagon.

4. So does Saudi Arabia.

5. Saddam forges a new Arab-Islamic alliance with himself as the head (his stated ambition was to be the new Saladin, after all).

6. Dukakis still does nothing.

7. King Hussein of Jordan, faced with massive pro-Saddam riots, joins Saddam's side.

8. Saddam announces his intention of "liberating Jerusalem"

9. Europe, Russia, et al declare neutrality (they don't want to jeopardize the massive weapon and oil contracts now arriving).

10. Dukakis sends a peace delegation to Saddam to "show the logic of peace and the foolishness of war" - Saddam takes them hostage and uses them as human shields. Dukakis announces any additional action is "too risky".

11. Saddam's armies, brimming with new supplies and weapons and bolstered by Syrian and Jordanian contingents and tens of thousands of eager Palestinian volunteers, begins a war against Israel.

12. Israel beats the daylights out of them.

13. Saddam bombards Israel with SCUD missiles carrying nerve-gas warheads.

14. Israel sterilizes Baghdad with atomics.

15. The resulting chaos and oil embargo on the US make the global economy go into a deep recession. Of course, with the nuclear genie loose a global recession is the least of anyone's worries.

Overall result of a Dukakis win - war with WMD's.

LESSON: If the USA does not provide global leadership, no one will.

Nice work. That could likely have been the scenario. Dean's promise to "cut and run" from Iraq (ie: not appropriate the $87B to finish the job) would similarly embolden terrorists that we were not serious about national security and that we would flee with a few casualties. The kinds of terrorist attacks following such a message could make 9/11 look like child's play.