How likely is it that Bushco will go for another invasion?

[salin]

The familiar rhetoric against Syria and Iran ebb and flow... disturbing tidbits (and descriptions of just WHO has been moved/stationed outside of) around North Korea... go back and forth.

I waiver in believing that they are crazy enough to believe another invasion (and a three front war) would be feasible. I thought that perhaps the push to get UN support - was a means to get more men on the ground and free up US power.

I think it would be nuts and catastrophic for the neocons to push a new war. But that ramped up rhetoric persists. Their blind ideology has been untarnished (to their eyes). They seem to believe that as long as they can manipulate the American people - world support is unneeded (except economically - where we are begging the Chinese to repeg their currency to help OUR economy). They seem to be oblivious to geo-political realignments they are forcing - or so arrogant in their blind ideology that they believe that they are alpowerful regardless of geopolitical realignment.

What say you - could they really be preparing for another invasion?

How will they sell it when they barely have half of the US population believing that invading Iraq was "worth it"?

Which would they invade?

How will they man it/pay for it?

My head say - there is NO WAY they could do this... but my ears "hear" something very different coming from Washington. What do you think?

[Aidoneus]

1. him and what army?

Assuming rationality is at work, I suspect the aggressive rhetoric against Syria & Iran (among others) is something of a pressure valve--but what is the really remarkable thing is how toothless all this shrill barking actually appears to be.

[ComerPerro]

5. You and your family

That army.

[Aidoneus]

42. if he wants a revolution, they'll do the draft

On the other hand if he wants a mutiny in the army, they'll invade another with what they've got.

Barking at all of these other countries is a threat of force that most of them suspect can't be backed up.

[salin]

7. That is what I would think

but their rhetoric suggests otherwise, and their ideology pushes more. Remember their big complaint about the cold war years was that empty rhetoric and empty threats weren't enough, containtment (through MADD) wasn't enough. We had to be aggressive - and threaten via the mythical (and unmythical investments) in StarWars ... Those behind the current throne pushed this. Thus empty rhetoric is exactly what they abhor.

Would they delude themselves that there was something unique to Iraq that made their presumed circumstance (heavy short battle - and then the citizens come throwing flowers...) not occur - but that under the long and hostile regime of Iran (or Syria) this would undoubtedly occur - so it would thus be cheap and not take many troops???? These fools feed themselves all sorts of deluded reasoning.

I wrote off their rhetoric before (as in.. there is NO way they could pull this off)... but something is really wrong with these folks...

[maggrwaggr]

51. Are you kidding? The Army's right there in Iraq

Syria's right next door. By the election we'll have a "stable Iraqi government" in place, so we can just pick up and invade Syria in time for the election.

It's unpatriotic to not support a wartime president, right? They'll harp on that and most people will agree that OMG we can't NOT support the president in a time of war!

And Bush might actually win an election. At the cost of a few more thousand lives.

[ThomWV]

2. Maybe Not

I think they would like to go after Syria. It would be the easiest one out there. But I think that Afghanastan will flare up badly before next spring and that will bog them down, and pull down public support as well. I think it will end up being Bush's downfall.

[KoKo]

3. They will do it....and they will claim it's because Bush warned us "Terra-

ists everywhere, and we will fight them where ever they are and in whatever country is harboring the evil doers who hate us for what we are..."

He has said this over and over and over and over and over and over.....well you get the drift.

Yes! He will do it. And, if he has to have his BFEE "Stage" an Event to whip up a "terraist" war fever here in the US he will do it. And, you know what? Tony Blair will help him! And the US Media Whores will support him, and half the Democrats will support him.

You know why? Take a look at who voted to give the "Emperor-in-Thief" money to throw into Iraq. Money to support the "friends of Chimp."

All you need to do is look at our US House and Senate, and you will know that whever the "Emperor" wants to go the "Emperor" will have a passport.

What? US? Who gives a F**king damn. We are irrelevant. And with Sharon as a ally, could we ask for more?

[UrbScotty]

4. Follow this formula

P=100-A

where P=% chance of another war happening and A=Bush's approval rating.

That means it's about 50-50.

[annxburns]

9. Bush will invade another country

PNAC will go after another country. My guess (and what I have been hearing) is that they will farm out Syria to Israel in exchange for latitude on putting the wall where Israel want and then the US will turn to Iran. It won't be for some time yet. 2004, they need to get through the election. 2005 will be the ramp up. And 2006 will see us in Iran. They have a five year plan but it has been slowed due to the mess in Iraq and Afganistan. Not much will happen in 2004 - they will try to stabilize and draw down the forces in Iraq to get through the election. They are predicting another terrorist attack on American soil before 2006 (all the models show it) and that will help justify the invasion in Iran.

[salin]

11. Rational thought would concur....

but why the LONG build up in rhetoric. I would think that a long pattern of empty threats would serve to weaken US support, and to embolden the world community to more proactively work to defang the US threat (geopolitical allignments... such as the new found muscle Putin is throwing around... or the proposed formation of a new EU based military coalition - in competition with NATO).

I think in their blind arrogance - IF they are working on a timeline - it is a shorter one.

[spotbird]

18. Welcome to DU annxburns

Are your sources reliable?

[tlcandie]

30. Welcome annxburns!!!

:hi:

[newyawker99]

32. Hi annxburns!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[On the Road]

35. Welcome, Annx!

:hi:

Per Wesley Clark's comments, there is no question there is a five-year plan targeting seven nations. The question is whether the troubles in Iraq have derailed the plan, or to what extent.

Someone I know who talks a lot to people in the intelligence community concurred that Syria was "next", but that it would "look different" from Iraq. I had thought this meant containment and destabilization, but it could just as easily refer to an Israeli attack. This interpretation had not occurred to me.

[spotbird]

6. Syria will “attack"

some American soldiers in Iraq with Saddam’s missing WMD. No one will ask why Syria would act in such a suicidal fashion and we we will invade. My guess is that it will be around spring or summer ’04 so Chimp can ride the top of the war bump into “reelection.”

[salin]

8. under this scenario... its not a "new" war?

but perhaps an extension of missions in Iraq - stemming from the border, perhaps?

[captainamerica101]

10. WE JUST SENT 10,000 TROOPS TO BOLIVIA MY FRIEND!

I'd say that is a war!

Bush should be flamed in public for launching it without Congressional approval!

I do not buy the word peacekeepers because police keep the peace, armies of 10,000 kill lots of political and religious enemies to ensure their friends stay in power when the people rise up and say what they are in Bolivia. (NO to privitize our water and NO to selling our gas/oil that we need here to make us stronger.)

The Bolivian president fled the country because the people rose up over these two issues and Georgie sent troops to make sure his rich friends in Bolivia do not have their companies looted by the great unwashed.

[salin]

13. You are correct - why do we pay so little attention?

10,000 is a huge number of troops.

I am afraid I have paid less attention than I should to this - any recommendations for sources? And in the story - any of those players (our old iran contra buddies) who were implicated in the attempted Venezuelan coup?

[kayell]

17. OMG, there was so little fuss about it

I was suckered too. For some reason I assumed (and we know what that makes me here) that it was another Liberian operation, damned annoying, but relatively minor in the grand scheme.

*slinks off, hangs head in shame*

[kayell]

49. On further searching, I think I was fooled again

I can't find anything at all about 10,000 troops, just a "team" of 6. Please provide links to back up the 10,000 figure.

[jhmay]

14. Cuba

They would probably see Cuba as an easy target and a way to guarantee Florida's electoral votes. Hope I'm wrong.

[Abe Linkman]

12. Another self-attack (9-11) is just as likely; if not more so.

n/t

[Maccagirl]

25. The attack will be against American interests abroad

not on American soil (* can't get away with that again)-but the media and the compliant populace will silence the dissenting voices enough to win next November.

[Papa]

15. 100% likelyhood they are going to invade another country

and they will do it a few weeks before the election. That's my prediction.

[lovedems]

23. Yes because they are SAYING they plan to pull the troops out of

Iraq in 2004...Just in time for the election or just in time to invade another country just before the election. They will use the same bullshit propaganda that worked so wonderfully the first time. Why he still has the support of 50% of the country tells me that 1/2 believe the lies he is still spreading. Who knows but I think it is inevitable. He needs to be seen as the "Terra pResident" to get re-elected by the bozo's who vote rethuglican. For everyone else, he will use it as a means to scare the pants off them.

[kayell]

16. They will do whatever their focus groups

indicate will keep the US population most compliant.

[salin]

22. Actually I think they use focus groups to figure out how to SELL

what they already plan on doing, rather than the other way around.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.green.html

Read this - on HOW the bushco uses focus groups polling. Not to gauge public opinion and form policy direction. Instead to figure out how best to frame unpopular ideas (what they WANT to do) in ways that the public who is against the ideas (in focus groups) will suddenly FAVOR the ideas. Really insidious.

[grytpype]

19. We don't have enough Army to do another invasion.

No way. We can't even maintain our current force levels in Iraq past the Spring.

[maggrwaggr]

52. Of course. That's what the 87 billion is for

don'tcha know.

To keep the armies in Iraq, beef them up, then invade Syria in time for the election.

By that time things in Iraq will have "settled down"

[Mairead]

20. They have it set up to do N. Korea beginning next summer

They've already arranged to put a favored general in charge and everything. The general's posting was talked about at DU a month or so ago.

[LunaC]

39. Yup, North Korea is the wildcard

and if they strategically continue to put Kim Jong Il on the back burner he's crazy enough to demand attention by initiating some type of strike now that we've kicked the Preemptive Door wide open. In this instance - if NK lets loose with a nuclear test against Smirk's warnings - the Junta can say "But HE started it!" and take themselves off the hook by initiating military action.

Considering that NK wants $$$$ from the U.S. and we have none to give, I consider this one of the more serious hotspots since good ole Kim has been rattling his sabers for the past year and is growing impatient.

[anakie]

21. they couldn't be that crazy

but they probably are. They don't see long term problems just short term (political) solutions. As for public approval - Americans love a winner and any war with Syria will be over just as quick as it was with Iraq. Embed pliant journalists with the invading force and watch the approval ratings soar.

[aeon flux]

24. A war with Iran would be disastrous

Just an hour ago Faux News had a discussion about the likelihood of US action against Iran. Both the guest speakers agreed that in the long run, the possibility of US military action against Iran is very high.

Which would be disastrous for US military forces. Unlike Iraq, Iran's military is formidable and hasn't been devastated by years of economic sanctions. US casualties from an Iran invasion would be through the roof.

[salin]

36. They are nuts! Faux is good - at indicating the positioning of the admin

start with your "friendly" audience.

Why do I doubt that the faux discussion included the part of the analysis of this post that raises rational points as to why this is dangerous and not comparable to Iraq?

[Clete]

26. You have a reason to be suspicious.

My take is that they want to get out of Iraq so they can start a war in another country like Iraq and Syria. For this they need the help of the UN so they can pull out our troops. Already they've started the drumbeat that another attack on US soil is imminent. I don't know if they will have the cojones to stage something or maybe they have some intelligence about something they can let happen.

When it occurs they have an excuse to invade another country. I believe if they can't get any volunteers in the military anymore, the draft will be brought back. I don't think it will be called that. How they shanghai unwilling combatants into military service, will be interesting to watch.

[lastliberalintexas]

27. IMHO, very likely

I think they know it's the only way for them to "legitimately" (ie, no voter fraud) win at the polls next year. And it is looking like it will be Syria, given their relatively weakened state of military powers, their fairly unpopular leader, and the ever increasing rhetoric against them from the misadministration.

Unfortunately, given the vote this week, it looks like the Dems in DC are going to roll over on this war too. Maybe even more so. *sigh*

[cliss]

28. Very good post, Salin.

I've been wondering the same thing myself. First of all, I think we should take them at their word. To their thinking, 'fixing' Iraq was only like cleaning half a house. They want to finish the job. That's the insanity of their thinking. They will never be done.

I want to know, will there be any telltale signs that they are preparing to attack either Syria or Iran? Will it be a clandestine operation, in the middle of the night while US citizens sleep? Give me an educated guess here:

1) How many troops would be needed to invade Iran? Do we have the manpower?

2) Do they need to ask anybody's permission? Like Congress?

3) How much firepower would they need?

4) Can they win this war?

At some point, we have got to conclude that these people are madmen. When and if they do strike, I think we have reached the point of no return.

[salin]

41. Can't answer about Iran or Iraq... but

through a very round about way... have heard that a military bigwig had been placed in the region and on alert in NKorea - since long before last April. The scuttlebutt (for what it is worth) is that this person would not have been placed into that arena unless an action was fully intended. To my knowledge this person has not yet been recalled.

I think they still believe that they can manipulate congress and the public to do whatever they please. Thus far they have been proven successful at this.

While they have learned that they can not manipulate the UN in a similar manner, they believe it doesn't matter - as long as they convince the US public, in their thinking, that the UN doesn't matter - they have learned (so they think) that it doesn't matter.

The problem is - the UN still does matter. And that their continued bellicoseness in and beyond Iraq - both in terms of war/invasion, and in terms of perceived attempts at taking control of important resources (be it actual or not in motivation - the perception, given that is to what other nations react, becomes the reality) - has put nations on edge, and has begun to force a geopolitical realingment. What they think they can accomplish (and in their ideologically blind minds they "know" rather than think), versus likely outcomes are two very different realities. The potential damage they are likely to do to this country, to other countries, and to the world (beyond the damage already inflicted), is almost inconceivable.

[Booberdawg]

29. It's crazy, it's nuts, the implications are catastrophic, and that's

why they probably WILL do it. These neocon fuckers are crazy. I think they are getting desperate. Part of my ambivalence about pulling our troops out of Iraq is because I KNOW it only means to them that they can stir up trouble elsewhere. What is the point of pulling our troops out of one frying pan to put them in another?

Looks like they can count on Israel to take care of Syria, so my guess it the next target is Iran. In the meantime, China, Russia, and much of Europe isn't taking too kindly to the implications of US imperialism. Then there is North Korea.

What a mess. Infuriating.

[anakie]

31. If Bush allows Israel to "take out" Syria

Bush would surely lose his last thread of credibility within even pro-US Arab countries. Allowing the Turks into Northern Iraq is one thing; Israel into Syria is another.

[Booberdawg]

33. Do you think he cares??? Do you think the neoCONS care???

That's only PART of why these fuckers are so dangerous!!

[Beetwasher]

34. Not Before Bush Steals A Second Term

Then all bets are off. He can and very well might re-institute the draft at that point, especially if there's another terrorist attack.

He can't do it before a second term though...

[drfemoe]

37. War Cries

are indeed coming from that corner.

Warning* 'conservative' media content

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200310170840.asp
October 17, 2003, 8:40 a.m.
Defeating Fascism, Again

..."The clerical fascists of the Middle East are now vulnerable, terribly vulnerable, and they know it. That is why they are seeking at all costs to distract us from the war against terror, which surely means above all the liberation of Iran. Whether you call it a roadmap or Saudi peace plan, it is a snare, a distraction from the main order of business, the defeat of the latest version of fascism and the spread of freedom to the region. Amazingly, our unschooled president has intuitively understood this, while many of his colleagues have not. He knows, as any good student of fascism learned half a century ago, that fascism has to be defeated on the battlefield from which it emerged. We have shown our ability to do it militarily. We need now press our advantage and drive the stake of freedom through the hearts of the fascist tyrants.

Faster, please."

[MasonJar]

38. soldiers in South Korea

Bush is talking about removing a lot of troops from SKorea. It has to be some Machiavellian scheme. Could it be to have troops that could attack an oil- rich nation? Could it be to nuke NKorea and be sure that no Americans are killed in the process?

[carpetbagger]

40. Moderately likely, entirely dependent upon circumstances.

They're waiting for excuses.

[0007]

43. I believe it is a matter of time -

When we have control in Iraq by using other counties military to protect the military bases we plan to build in Iraq. Then the US will invade other Muslim countries like Iran Syria.

In my opinion that is one of the reasons why we wanted Halliburton in Iraq.

[catmandu57]

44. We all know they want to, but,

another war, logistically would be a nightmare. There are too many variables that the neoconvicts are'nt seeing. The original plan was to use Iraq as a base to take out Iran and Syria, now however, Iraq has turned into a shooting gallery, creating a huge drain on resources, personnal, equipment, morale, etc...

People are awake now, watching and scrutinizing every move that comes from these incomps. Everywhere all over the world, people are watching and whether the world lets another act of trumped up, naked, illegal war take place remains to be seen.

As for Israel taking out Syria, this could only be done with massive help from our military. While the air force and navy are relatively free right now, who is going to pay for this?

There is no gaurrantee that Israel would be successful either, and while a madman has their government right now, they would have a strong peace movement to keep their fundicrazies in check.

We are running out of little push over countries, Iran, and Syria have'nt suffered years of sanctions and constant bombing to weaken their defenses. If we were to try anything against either we would get bloodied but good.

N.Korea in all likelihood would be the subject of a nuclear strike, if that happened no matter if their government is controled by a madman, we would suffer complete isolation, and economic ruin.

So, yes, these idiots are cumming in their pants wanting to control the world, but nobody has ever conquered the world, or held the parts very long.

It's up to us to prevent any such maddness from ever happening in the first place.

[LeahMira]

45. Do you really doubt it?

What say you - could they really be preparing for another invasion?

Yes.

How will they sell it when they barely have half of the US population believing that invading Iraq was "worth it"?

They will either scare the people or appeal to "moral decency." WMDs, mushroom clouds and torture chambers... remember?

Which would they invade?

Any on the "axis of evil." Syria, Iran, and Cuba are strong possibilities since I'd think they are among the weakest militarily.

How will they man it/pay for it?

Cut out social welfare programs.

[salin]

47. The level of gullability

of the public, frightens me. Alas you are probably correct. A combination of the fear tactics used before, and a moral righteousness also used before. The rest of the world will see right through it.

Will they (the admin) will use lack of world support as a reason to vilify the UN (are we going to change the word "United" to something else like we did "french"... oh - but what would that due to our own countries name...)?

I am still mystified by the lack of critical thinking from those planning all of this madness. They really have over extended manpower. They really do have a money problem. Yet they seem to be poised to move forward.

[kentuck]

46. Not likely. It would be insane.

With troops stretched to the limit, with low morale, with suicides in the ranks, etc. It would be insane to try and invade another country at this time. It may be a "volunteer" army but they didn't volunteer for this bullshit.

[salin]

48. That is your rational self speaking

but have the neocons demonstrated rational thought in their approach to international relations? In their approach to economics? In their approach to anything?

[maggrwaggr]

50. we'll be invading someone during the election of 2004

Why? Because people support "wartime presidents."

Our Army is right there in Iraq, ready to invade either Iran or Syria. I'd guess Syria because it's a much smaller country and much easier to invade. Iran would be a nightmare.

They'll do another "Northwoods" type project to instigate the whole thing.

Can I go to Vegas and bet on this?

[salin]

54. Well I hear there was this government sponsored betting pool

that you could have wagered in... But seems the folks on the hill found it a rather unseemly use of DOD tax payers dollars. ;-)

[nolabels]

55. If you find a Casino that takes the bet post it up DU, we all could.......

be rich, either that or we might bankrupt the Casino :silly:

[maggrwaggr]

53. Didn't Clark warn of this in the "debate?"

Why doesn't he say more about it.

He was trying to say as they cut him off for a commercial that election 2004 would be too late, that Bushco was planning another war before that.