Posted on 01/10/2003 2:31:13 PM PST by Imal
This is my first, and possibly last, vanity post. I have held back from starting a thread on this article for months, and have posted various aspects of my "strategery" theory in different posts on different threads, but am dying to discuss it in its own thread, because I think it is important enough a theory to stand on its own. In fact, this article is mostly boilerplated from this post, which evolved out of a discussion about the American hero Captain Michael Scott Speicher, may God bless his name.
Granted, my theories about George W. Bush are speculative, and time may prove me wrong (we will know soon enough). But my thoughts arise from many months of study, observation and contemplation, and, so far, the passage of time only seems to confirm my hunches about the man and his methods. And you should know, my first impressions of George W. Bush were by no means flattering. Those impressions have been tempered by numerous events since his ascendancy to the presidency. But make no mistake: I am not a Bush groupie by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I think We the People need to make sure he doesn't accumulate too much presidential power, but that's another topic for a different thread.
In my opinion, the upcoming war in Iraq is an excellent and illustrative vignette that encapsulates the understated brilliance of the man we call "Dubya".
In this chapter of the Bush presidency, I believe he is using Iraq to accomplish several strategic goals in one stroke. I believe his cabinet and advisors are fully on board with him, because success in Iraq will be a masterful stroke of military and diplomatic cleverness.
I am fairly convinced that the Bush administration is in possession of some very hard evidence that Iraq not only has weapons of mass destruction and has been positioning them for use, but also has provable ties to active terrorist organizations, probably but not necessarily including Al Qaeda. The ties may even involve safe harboring of many terrorists in Iraq, which would partially explain why the U.S. has been quietly surrounding Iraq with troops and security agreements (such as with Jordan) for more than a year.
Iraq may very well be Afghanistan II, with the toppling of a hostile regime and terrorist hunt scenario. Except in this case, the stakes are raised, because Saddam is much craftier than Mullah Omar, and the Iraqi military has much greater resources than the Taliban (remember them?) ever dreamed of.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Bush will invade Iraq without the hard evidence he needs to put egg on the face of the U.N. and the Democrats, both of whom he despises and both of whom will look like idiots once the truth comes out.
Why hold back the evidence, rather than using it to build a groundswell of domestic and international support? I think there are two main reasons, as well as several lesser ones:
Reason 1: Military and intelligence security. Saddam knows we know about his weapons and evil intentions. However, he doesn't know exactly what or how much we know. If he did know, he would quietly take steps to both eliminate the evidence (or move it out of sight) and eliminate those assets that revealed it. He could have an entire weapons program's staff and their families tortured and slaughtered without batting an eye, and has a reputation for exactly that. As Sun Tzu and every other great military leader has pointed out again and again, deception is the greatest weapon of war.
Reason 2: Politics. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was an obvious and egregious enough act to build support for a coalition to drive Saddam out. Revelations of nasty weapons, terrorist ties and war plans are not as dramatic, and, even in the wake of 9-11, make for a harder sell to a skeptical domestic and international constituency. Naysayers who would oppose war no matter what (including the now heavily Liberal and Marxist Democratic Party, which used to be much more hawkish) have been expending their energy fighting a straw man crafted by the vague and unsupported claims made so far by the Bush administration. I find it extremely unlikely that Bush is lying about Iraq, but I notice that he has not been at all forthcoming about details. This is apparently deliberate. Those foolish enough to jump on the bandwagon against him without any real basis to do so will be utterly discredited when he lays his cards on the table. Cries of "foul" about being kept in the dark will be trumped by the legitimate need for operational security, and the naysayers will be neutralized politically. This, of course, applies to the Democrats, but especially to the U.N., the relevance of which Bush is openly challenging.
There are many other good reasons why Bush should wait until the eleventh hour before tipping his hand, including the generally mercurial nature of the American public, but I think the two reasons above are the big ones.
Consider that after Iraq is conquered, a government benevolent to the U.S. will be installed, oil will be sold in abundance to pay off Iraqi debts and rebuild the country (castrating OPEC -- and we're working on Venezuela, btw -- and, of course, the U.S. economy will flourish with all this cheap oil coming in = Bush + Republicans win again in 2004), a security agreement with the U.S. will be implemented that allows us to use Iraq as a huge, excellently positioned military base (no more begging the Saudis for permission, etc.), and puts U.S. forces in a much stronger position to pursue and eliminate both terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them, and invading Iraq is a no-brainer.
I could be wrong, but everything about the way the Bush administration is acting supports my suspicions to the tee. Everyone who has underestimated the shrewdness and wisdom of George W. Bush in the past has come to regret it. He's extremely clever, and, in my opinion, a modern Abraham Lincoln, who was also underestimated by his opponents and used it to stunning advantage.
I like to call his leadership style "strategery".
Just kidding, nice work.
By the way, one reason among several for the delay is the upcoming Israeli elections. We need a settled Israeli government in place before moving.
You just cashiered Ulysses S. Grant and kept George McClellan in command of the Union Army. But then again, maybe you would have preferred a Confederate victory in the Civil War.
Sorry, Bud, but your lame post and even lamer statement about President Bush being incompetent won't wash with this former Democrat. Oh, how I am glad that I left the Left behind. The vast majority of liberals are nothing more than women-degrading, (especially the liberal women who just adored or ignored Bill Clinton's piggish behavior that nasty, bad boy!) SUV-driving, (Norman Lear and Baba Streisand each own more than one SUV!) greedy, racist, (keep those Afro-Americans down on the Democratic Plantation, cause every Lib instinctively knows that "those people" could never make it on their own without Lib Massa doling out the tax dollars and presenting the Republican boogeyman threat to keep them in line and voting!) intolerant of Christians and/or any religion that disavows "moral relativity," (however, it has become fashionable for Libs to praise Islam without ever having read the Koran or Hadith and then use the excuse of "poverty" and US/Israel bullying to explain the existence of Palestinian suicide bombers and those poor, downtrodden Muslim terrorists who orchestrated 9/11) think Hillary Clinton is a "feminist who actually cares about the little person" and would make a great President just because she is a woman, and still believes that Saddam Hussein has no WMD because the media said that the UN Inspectors have found "no smoking gun" over and over (carefully ommitting the following statement from those same UN Inspectors that Iraq is not fully cooperating and has violated numerous agreements regarding WMD!) and is really a kind and beloved guy! (Just like Osama Bin Laden who also supposedly builds roads, hospitals, daycare centers, hidden weapons caches, terrorist training camps, etc. for a "peaceful" populace who love living under the thumbs of such leaders...
Moron. You liberal men are just like (or want to be like) your hero Michael Moore who lives in a fancy NY Condo, sends his daughter to an exclusive, expensive private school and blames others (especially conservatives and $5.00 an hour theatre staffers) for his and the world's problems. Liberalism is chock full of hypocrisy, greed, and sheer stupidity.
At least conservatives know when to get rid of the embarassing ones amongst them. (Nixon, Packwood, Gingrich and Lott come to mind.) Liberals sneer at anyone who calls them or their fellow Libs out on a LIE, CRIME or glaring "mistake." They admire and defend their fools. (Clinton and KKK Bryd come to mind...there are so many others.)
But either way, U.S. troops are going in. I'm almost certain of that.
Oh great, now I'll have Mr. Himself looking over my shoulder! :^)
You're absolutely right about time being of the essence. The window is, indeed, very narrow, and failure to line everything up at just the right time could well seal the doom of Bush to be a one-termer like his dad. And I'm sure he and his staff know this intimately.
Personally, I think we'll see decisive military at the beginning of February. President Bush will probably present his evidence to the U.S. and the world just a few days before the first air strikes and SOCOM actions. The effect will be positively seismic.
Either that, or I'm dead wrong and pulling this article from the archives in a few months will be good for a hoot or two.
I'm certainly no prophet, but the way things are shaping up seems uncanny to me.
As Gene Hackman said to Will Smith in Enemy of the State, "You're either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid." That may apply both to President Bush and to myself.
We'll see which it is...
The man has chutzpah, to be sure, but I think this would be farther out on a limb than he'd be willing to go.
He's literally putting his presidency on the line here, and I cannot believe he would do so without a few aces up his sleeve.
Also, I don't think he's a liar. He's cagey, but not a liar, and he has repeatedly declared, to the American people, our allies and to the U.N., that Iraq is a credible threat.
He would have to be both a liar and a lunatic to say such things without solid proof in his back pocket.
What's your take on the North Korea situation? What do you think they are up to? And do you think there's any back door connection with Iraq?
I believe that the evidence is well-known in the government(s) and has been for quite a while.
We'll all recall that GWB was calling for the removal of Hussein during his campaign, and even in the debates against Gore. This isn't new.
The US knew it (the evidence), France knew it, the UK knew it, they all knew it. GWB realized something had to be done about it -- and he's doing it.
As for Bush surrounding himself with talent, I noticed that very early on. It takes a true leader to surround himself with such a capable and venerable team. A Bill Clinton would not have the moral authority or self-assurance necessary to sit down with the high-powered cabinet Dubya has assembled, and indeed, Clinton didn't and couldn't.
Some may object, but I am reminded of the great Ronald Reagan, who also knew to surround himself with competent leaders he could delegate to. The wisdom of this method lies in the fact that the President avoids micromanaging the departments and can, instead, concentrate on the Big Picture, or "strategery", if you will. Clinton had problems with this.
Love him or hate him, George W. Bush is walking the path of greatness.
I agree. The stakes are very high, and these are the times that try mens' souls. It speaks volumes about Bush that he's willing to step up to the plate. I should be so brave!
What's your take on the North Korea situation? What do you think they are up to? And do you think there's any back door connection with Iraq?
As ominous as North Korea may seem at the moment, the fact is that they are so economically depressed and dependent on foreign aid that it will probably not take much to blow them over. If President Bush truly considered Kim Jong-Il to be a mortal threat to the U.S., Kim would suffer an unfortunate illness and die an untimely death.
However, as with Saddam, I suspect Kim is playing right into Bush's hands. Poor bastard, he has no idea of what he's up against, and that's the way Bush likes to play. Kim may very well be the next bogeyman after Saddam is disposed of. And that no doubt suits Bush's plans quite nicely.
As for a connection to Iraq, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Saddam has money, and Kim will sell to anyone willing to pony up the dough, so an Iraq-North Korea connection isn't exactly a stretch.
North Korea is a wild card, and thus does present a real danger -- especially since they export long-range ballistic missile technology. However, I won't be surprised if Bush pulls their fangs very soon.
Of course, he won't do that until it benefits him most, and Bush is a master of timing. Stay tuned.
I consider Tony Snow to be a very credible source in and of himself. That man has a bright future ahead of him.
It's extraordinarily unlikely that Snow would even suggest such a thing unless he was quite confident of the source, but I think the operative expression here is "appropriate time".
A few more things need to be put in place before the trap can be sprung.
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.