Given how well the liberation of Iraq has gone, it's a worry. Though perhaps in domestic political terms, it's a better strategy to go and knock over a fresh evil regime and leave the festering pit of brutal misery that Iraq has become to quietly fall out of media coverage. Meanwhile, North Korea is still in the too-hard basket, despite the fact that, if there ever was one candidate for an "evil regime" to knock over (both on humanitarian grounds and under the doctrine of preemptive self-defence; after all, isn't Kim Jong Il uncomfortably close to being able to hit California with nuclear missiles?), that would probably be it.
Anyway, how much do you want to bet that, when the Somalization liberation of Iran comes around, John Howard's Australia and Tony Blair's Britain will be jostling for first in line to volunteer troops?
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.
http://
Tue Jan 18 01:58:27 2005
Whatever all the good and "sound" strategic reasons may be: it is so very unlikely that the US will deploy its already overextended forces in the region to fight an opponent who would be (far) better armed, better prepared, and equally undefeatable by plaim military ways. Also consider the finances of occupying Iraq involved: gazillions are spent on "securing" democracy (oil?) in Bagdhad at present, and the US economy is already knocked about by foreign debt records, etc. Even if the body should be willing, the purse want not... In any case, we'd have to expect another major spin & advertising campaign to "manufacture consent" and "credible" belief in Iran's threat to freedom, peace, love, flowers, cute little puppies trapped in well shafts, hair gloss gel, etc. etc.