Replies

These things take time, and even the sequence of targets is up to some considerable debate.

Broadly speaking, I'd give the start of the first major ground attack a date range of mid-November 2002 to Winter 2004.

Yes, they take time, but also a sense of urgency is essential to success. Both patience and urgency are needed. Give neither short shrift.

I'm with you on the likelihood that nothing will happen until post-election, but perhaps for some different reasons. I don't buy into the prevailing wisdom that going to war will be a big bump to the GOP in the November elections. Now a solid victory might produce that, but an attack on Iraq could spin-off some pretty messy byproducts short-term. Bio warfare, a damaging counterattack against Israel, unexpected intervention, domino opportunism in another region, etc. None are probable, but all are within the realm of legitimate risk. None would prevent us from winning in the long-term, but would give the media and Dems the opportunity to ferment increased discord and implied second-guessing at the moment. They Dems(who'd sue their mother if it advanced their agenda) would do it in a heartbeat if they felt it might swing a close election. A key to their strategy has always been to sow doubt now, and worry about the truthful refutation after the election, with 2 years for the public to forget. So an October start is politically risky, while Sept/August are only less so by degree.

Plus any pre-election strike would be immediately questioned by the media as an October surprise to aid the GOP in Nov., since the economy is dropping and scandals are emerging. The media will gladly carry the Dems water for a month or two, and it would likely have an impact on the ignorants and a portion of the swing voters. Wouldn't necessarily prevent Bush from striking if he felt that was the time to do it, but it is being factored in.

As to Iran or N. Korea being attacked first, no way(at least not this year). What has Bush done to state his case to the leaders of other nations and to build geopolitical will for such a strike? He's not afraid to go it alone, but he will attempt to build a coalition before taking such a drastic move. Such an attack would completely go against his previous patterns of behavior. That doesn't preclude a strategic quit hit, like what the Israeli's did with the nuke plant in the early 80's, or some requested aid to revolutionaries, but not a full-bore gov't toppling action. Same for Korea, Bush has a pattern of giving enemies at least a pretense of a chance to back out before he drops the hammer. Oh, he may set the bar so high that he knows the renegades will never agree to the requested conditions, but he always builds a case that he gave them an out, and their actions/inactions forced his hand and left him no choice.

We'll see, but my guess is post-election. Possibility of something within the next month or so, but not in October. You're point of he being a patient man is right on target, IMHO.