Re: [Fwd: commentary 117]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Trichur Ganesh wrote:

> Nothing is "very unlikely" in times of systemic chaos.  Ganesh.
>
> Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:
>
> >In a message dated 7/16/2003 4:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >tganesh@stlawu.edu writes:
> >
> >>(1) an invasion of Iran/Syria and/or a pre-emptive attack on North
> >>Korea cannot be ruled out (for the near future) especially as election
> >>dates appear closer
> >
> >Very Unlikely.  The US army is tapped out keeping up the occupation of
> >Iraq--where would they find the troops for another occupation?
> >Imperial overstretch, as they say.

Although the Iraq situation is causing the US some discomfort, the army
(1.5 million strong, I believe) is far from being tapped out.
Furthermore, if it looks like Democrats will be able to mount a credible
challenge, then I think all options for remaining in power for Bush are on
the table.  But the real danger isn't confined to electoral politics, but
embraces the global situation.  North Korea has claimed that it has
finished reprocessing its fuel rods, and is presumably proceeding to
construct nuclear warheads.  If Kim Jong Il tests a nuke, or even worse,
sells one, then the damage to US prestige will far exceed whatever benefit
it derived from its vicotry in Iraq.  The neocons especially are sensitive
to this danger, because the maintenance of US prestige worldwide is their
raison d'etre for being in power.  In Iran, the intelligence services are
already very heavily involved, and are rushing to ensure that they manage
to destabilize the government in Tehran before Iran succeeds in
destabilizing the US occupation government in Iraq.  The US under Bush and
the neocons may feel drawn into another military conflict simply because
they can no longer control the situation, but the political spinmeisters
will try their best to translate such a conflict into an electoral
victory.


-- 
Boris Stremlin
bstremli@binghamton.edu