Capture stops old regime return - but if reason is Islamic Nationalist?

[papau]

Bush desparately wants the media to use Saddam's capture to sell "Bush in control" - as that means votes for Bush.

But Saddam's imprisonment is a major turning point that means rapid end of guerrilla war only if restoring the Baathist party has been the motivation.

There is a lot of evidence that the "insurgency" is motivated by hatred of Americans and desire for Iraqi nationalism.

Bush and our media is selling both possible outcomes at the same time - with Bush in control as the subtext.

Namely, the media today is saying that there may be an immediate upsurge in guerrilla attacks but in the long term Saddam's capture will doom the insurgency. So no matter what happens through November - we knew it would happen and it is all part of the plan! God, our media whores are good at servicing Bush!

So today we learn of the power of images of a mouth exam to a guy with matted hair - it will end our presumed problem of folks seeing Saddam as a mortal god on an Arab throne, and folks will stop fearing his return to power, and the new aura of defeat will cause a huge burst of intel that will end our policing problems.

And if you do not believe that, then how about there will be a brief, temporary, not much past the next election, increase in attacks as those losers try to convince folks of the world that the insurgency is a broad nationalist movement motivated by more than loyalty to Saddam?

Now Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the manner in which Saddam was living makes it clear that "he was not managing the insurgency, and he had very little influence. "This is significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the United States."

But then Sen. Rockefeller is a Dem, and is not on the Bush media page where it says "Bush is in control - sleep easy - vote GOP!"

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Absolutely right.

The foofaraw over Saddam's capture is premature. It sets up more problems for Bush than it solves.

[Fovea]

2. As I said in another thread

Saddam's capture actually emboldens the nationalists and the islamists both, for they know now that if they kick the Americans out, they can fight it out among themselves for supremacy without meaninful interference. I suspect that with Saddam gone, the remaining secular Baathist will be making formal arraingments with those they avoided before.

I agree that Saddam did not look like the insurgency's leader.
He looked a lot like someone who had been drugged, frankly. But his being on the loose was an inhibition to those who would have even tolerated American occupation rather than a return to Saddam. Now their remaining inhibitions may not be enough to make them pick up a gun tomorrow, but every dead Iraqi child is 100 folks with guns and bombs.

Iraq is a very fragile prize for BushCo. It will take a lot of resources to protect the oil supply line. Taxpayers will pay for that insufficient security out the ass, but will be rewarded by higher gas prices *and* higher state and federal taxes, as this conflict goes regional.

Saddam's strategy was not the Hitlerian wonder weapon strategy. Sure, they were good for scaring the neighbors off the back 40, but not good enough to stop a desert storm, he already knew that. So Saddam offered an RPG in every pot, and a rocket launcher in every garage. They are still there, waiting to be dug up by disgruntled Iraqis.
At night, in between the explosions, you can hear them gruntle quietly in the darkness beyond the green zone.


How secure is al Saud? We don't really know, because we don't have enough translators. We know what we know because we pay people like Chalabi to tell us what we want to know. In order to make money, they tell is what we want to hear, and we glibly call it the truth.
While charming, in a politburo kinda way, this technique does not prepare us to fight a war on terror, or any other entity, abstract or concrete. It prepares us to walk into ambush after ambush, which well describes the situation on the ground in Iraq. I submit it will be the case soon in Saudi Arabia, as well.

Saudi Arabia is looking a lot like Russia under Nicholas and Alexandra. There is a secret police, an underground popular movement, and a monarch bent on staying in control of both. I was shocked to hear that al Saud was willing to open negotiations with the wahabbists. That is not a strategy played from a position of strength.

If the Saudi government falls, then we have an exponential increase in the region's insecurity, and we will be facing a formidable force that will likely be fighting us frontally in Iraq, while a fifth column force in the States is activated. Remember, 911 was the work of a platoon, not a division.

Can the American fleet stay in the Gulf under these circumstances?
No.

Has George Bush made America safer?
I do not think so.