No specific communication would even be necessary. All the key players understand the forces that are in play here, the incentive structure, the carrots and the sticks.
As regards "strategery," understand that different players call for different tactics. Some players may be "in" and "on board," while others may be exploited to achieve policy ends in a more Pavlovian fashion, leveraging their known stimulus-response characteristics You see the same motifs recurring over and over again in the Bush "strategery." Consider three different aspects of the post-911 situation that he has had to finesse: the anthrax threats, the Arafat problem, and the issue of confronting Iraq. In each case, some kind of stall and/or misdirection has been necessary to avoid things going off half-cocked. In each case, leftist or anti-American forces have been unwittingly leveraged to facilitate the administration's objective. The anthrax cover story leveraged the liberal media's enthusiasm for right-wing villains, and left-wing busybody Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's fixation on the bogeyman of the "military-industrial complex." The usual suspects internationally (France, Germany) facilitated the almost imperceptible removal of Saddam's cat's paw, Arafat, from the world stage, and are now giving Bush the cover he needs to go slow over any military confrontation with Iraq. In each case, in addition to the useful idiots, there have also been aligned forces which having knowingly conspired in the stall or misdirection. In the case of the anthrax, this included, at minimum, the FBI's Operation Amerithrax and it's author, Dr. Steven Hatfill. Colin Powell played the Hatfill/fall-guy role in the Arafat strategy, pretending to be a great, hand-wringing advocate of a continued relationship with our erstwhile "partner in peace." Powell has played the same role with respect to Iraq. My guess would be that, while Powell has, at least for the time being, "uncloaked," he has passed the baton onto that old KGB man, Vladimir Putin. And Vladimir knows how to keep a secret. Notice how, even though Russia's position on Iraq is virtually identical to France's, there's not the slightest indication that has lost his faith in Putin.
I don't know whether the Schroeder and Chirac personally fall into the useful-idiot category, or the knowing-shill category. I tend to suspect the former at this point -- I think they're the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Nic Kristof of the big strategy. But it doesn't matter, so long as they do what we need them to do. And right now, what we need them to do is to make it look like Bush is fearless and gung-ho for war, while giving him the cover he needs to postpone this thing until we are good and ready.
I don't know whether the Schroeder and Chirac personally fall into the useful-idiot category, or the knowing-shill category. I tend to suspect the former at this point -- I think they're the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Nic Kristof of the big strategy. But it doesn't matter, so long as they do what we need them to do. And right now, what we need them to do is to make it look like Bush is fearless and gung-ho for war, while giving him the cover he needs to postpone this thing until we are good and ready.
This is baby vomit. We will be good and ready by the end of the month. We will be even more ready by the middle of March, when I believe this thing is scheduled to jump off.
Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. This is all about logistics. It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.
The object of that operation is to actually put us in Baghdad by D+4 at the latest, to take advantage of the speed of our mechanized units and the confusion that will reign among Saddam's command.
The United States will have upwards to 200,000 men in and around Iraq by the end of the month. No amount of anthrax can alter this fact, nor can it remove the political imperitive to undo Saddam Hussein's regime. Military buildups take on a life and momentum of their own, and this one is no different.
We attack by the middle of the March.
Convoluted scenarios cannot explain away an obvious military buildup. The military is not designed to remain at a high state of readiness for an extended period of time. There's a lot of talk going 'round that the United States could attack in the fall. People who believe that have no idea what it takes to keep an army in the field, fed, and its morale up.
Great Powers do not take risks like this without being willing to act. We are willing to act, and we will.
Be Seeing You,
Chris