Rumsfeld's threats do serve one more geopolitical end, larre.

I don't think I'm alone in wondering: "Is Cheneyfeld crazy enough to go nukyuhlar?" As long as Iran wonders the same thing, his threats will keep them from making any flagrant power-grabs.

But they don't need to be flagrant. As you've pointed out, it's tough to imagine a non-nukyuhlar scenario that doesn't benefit Iran. They just need to play it cool.

Reason #432 why this war was a really, really bad idea.

Posted by Matt Davis at September 8, 2004 12:44 PM

Shouldn't Rummy be concentrating on the "several regions of Iraq that are not under our control" situation. A year and a half of war in Iraq, 1000 dead GI's and Rummys Army for the 21st Century is losing and losing badly. Not only is he a buffoon, he's a loser, and another miserable failure appointed by George W. Bush.

Posted by T2 at September 8, 2004 01:43 PM

Has it occurred to anyone in a position of authority in this administration that it may be impossible to "win" a modern war without inflicting massive non-combatant casualties on the enemy nation?

I'm thinking Dresden.

Hirosima & Nagasaki.

Tokyo for that matter.

Low points in human conflict all.

All precedent to the ultimate capitulation of the enemy.

But we just won't do it now.

So the killing will just go on and on.

Instead of killing hundreds of thousands in one fell swoop there will be a slow bleed of civilian deaths to go right along with the deaths of combatants on both sides.

Add to this the monetary and economic costs of a sustained military conflict.

What would happen to the US economy if another bomb went off in the heart of the NY financial district?

And is the fighting in Iraq doing anything to make such an event less likely?

Posted by just asking is all at September 8, 2004 01:58 PM

I hope W isn't "focussin' like lazer beam". I always get worried when I hear that.

Posted by Dave at September 8, 2004 02:03 PM

The Iraq occupation has become a war of liberation. In the 20th Century every war of liberation eventually was victorious. The 21st Century will be no different.

Either the US embarks on the Freeper Crusade or withdraws. To conquer Iraq will take a million boots on the ground. Destruction of Fajulah and Sadr City would do wonders for security. For a decisive President, why all the indecision on resuming the Draft and killing of thousands and thousands more Iraqis and Muslims.

Posted by Jim S at September 8, 2004 02:10 PM

If Bush's policies weaken our nation while Cheney's personal bank account grows richer off it.
Check out:

Linked text

Posted by at September 8, 2004 02:14 PM

I
expect the Iraqi politickin' to finally compell the "candidates" to promise to throw out the USA. The winner will probably need to promise that - AND follow through. Then what? What will we do with a formal request from an autonomous government?
If I was a True Bushite, I would invade Iran. Just put those 75K troops being "recalled" inside Iran, and sit there with air cover and try to provoke revolution. Either the Iranians come out and face us, getting their butts kicked, or they hunker down (United They Stand!) and also go to the UN. We would then face the world as criminals.
High stakes poker with criminals.

Posted by Richard W. Crews at September 8, 2004 02:28 PM

Don't forget, BushCo said we would leave if the Iraqi govt. asked us to. Any day we could have them "ask" us (since we actually control them) to leave. Look for that request to come around mid-October if Bush has sunk back down to his normal 42-43% rut and the margin is outside what Rove thinks he can "fix" come Nov 2.

Posted by T2 at September 8, 2004 02:51 PM

Bushco had plans to go to Iran pre-911. Halliburton needs the oil contracts. Same with Cuba. We'll then be in Mexico. As Halliburton wants so Cheney makes real.

Posted by phidiepides at September 8, 2004 03:19 PM