Thieving Magpie

I think I have heard this at least five times already on this board: "Bush & Blair have just been beating the war drums for too long, and moved too many troops to the Gulf that war must, in fact, be inevitable."

That's horse-hooey. Sure, war may happen, but this may just be an elaborate display of brinksmanship. Just keep applying the pressure until Saddam snaps, and then the game is over. The troops go home without actually fighting. All these exercises can be merely seen as putting psychological pressure on the enemy, though they could be used in their obvious application if that fails.

Keep in mind that if Bush decides, after all this, not to invade Iraq he may be seen as being incredible compassionate, compared to what everyone thought he was. He would not really, or necessarily be so, but the political/psychological stakes would be in his favour.

If Bush could actually, make sure Iraq stops producing weapons of mass destruction, and possibly acquire a regime change as well without invading, it would be for a large part because there would be such a powerful threat against Iraq, and Saddam himself, that they felt that they had to step aside or else something much worse would happen.

It is far easier, and more popular, to stop an 'inevitable' war before it even begins. Get what you want, and you stop beating the drum. Concessions must be made, but war is not necessarily going to happen.

Thoughts? Comments?

Gurdur

Bloody financially expensive, if only pure brinkmanship, wouldn't you say ?

Thieving Magpie

No. Expensive, yes, but less expesive than an actual war would be, so not expensive for the sack of brinksmanship.

DarkBronzePlant

What would constitute Saddam "snapping", in the sense that it would convince Bush, Blair & Co. to pack up and go back home?

Danya

I don't think it's brinkmanship. Bush want's Iraq and he's going to take it.

braces_for_impact

Oh puh-lease, like he's gonna get his own beachfront property in Iraq or something...sheeesh.

elwoodblues

That's the key question. I really don't know if Bush CAN back down at this point. He's backed himself into a political corner. If he doesn't invade after all this, he'll be viewed as a coward by much of his voting base. Of course, that doesn't mean the good ol' boys will be voting Democrat. Heaven forfend. But they wouldn't flock to the polls with quite as much fervor come 2004. And that might make all the difference, considering the tight election in 2000.

I really don't see any way for Bush to save enough face to counteract the above. If, somehow, things turn out so he can make it look like a game in retrospect, and make it all look worth the money we spent on it, he might back down short of invasion. I don't see how that will happen, but the world is a weird place. Hussein could keel over tomorrow and die of a brain hemmorage. Or two bullets to the head. Or ground glass in his cheerios. That'd certainly change things.

Thieving Magpie

I believe Bush wants to stop any weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq, and also, probably get a different regime installed. I think these goals can be achieved peacefully with a threat of force, and eventually, if necessary, force itself. Bush would not have any face to save if he got what he wanted without going to war - which is what I suspect he wants.

If he did "stop any weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq, and also, probably get a different regime installed" without war, there would be no shame in NOT invading Iraq.. quite the opposite in fact, as there would then be no credible reason to invade.

DarkBronzePlant

That's true, I didn't think of that angle. Hussein dying of natural causes is outside of this discussion, but there are plenty of unnatural causes that might do him in, many of which could be encouraged or facilitated by an administration that backed itself into a corner.