war plans

[Max Sawicky]

1.   wag the dog is pretty convincing to me, as far as it goes, but there's
plenty more
2.   the personal thang
3.   oil field grab
4.   warning/rebuke to other state sponsors of terrorism (i.e., watch your
ass, you could be next)
5.   extend/deepen super-power hegemony in region
6.   strengthen hold on the oil sheikdoms (i.e., watch your ass, you could
be next)
7.   actual security concerns (trivial, but greater than zero)
8.   strengthen Israeli position in region

mbs


> Attacking Iraq makes little sense from the point of view of "war on
> terrorism" - since Iraq is almost certainly not involved in sponsoring
> terrorism.  The question thus remains, why Bush and his entourage
> pursue it?
>
> The "wag the dog" explanations (e.g. vendetta, mobilizing popular support
> to win the November election) do not seem very convincing.
>
> One possibility is that Iraq is merely a diversion, and the real targets
> are Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Attacking these countries makes perfect sense
> from the point of view of "war on terrorism" because these countries are
> main sponsors of terrorist networks.  Any thoughts?
>
> wojtek
>
>
>