Carl Remick wrote:
>
>
> I think Iraq could prove the most costly, in the sense of debilitating, US
> war of all time. It has exposed the US "hyperpower" image as a sham,
> revealing the US military is neither omnipotent nor even competent. That
> image will be more deeply branded into the consciousness of the world and US
> public every extra day the US is in Iraq. In turn, that will:
Look. No _government_ at the present time is both willing and able to oppose the u.s. The potential enemies are (as in Iraq) _people_. But won't people around the world pay quite a bit of attention to the terrible damage to the people of Iraq that Bush, Clinton & Bush have inflicted? Governments and Thinktanks might think in terms of "final score," but people are apt to put more emphasis on the cost, regardless of outcome. Everyone talks of the Vietnam Syndrome in the U.S. What about the Vietnam Syndrome among potentially rebellious populations?
And judging by the size and militancy of the anti-war movement in the u.s., the chief lesson the people in the u.s. seem to have learned so far from this war is that you can't fight city hall, so why bother.
Also, to repeat myself for the nth time: The Mideast is Different. The U.S. will recognize no limits to the damage it can do to the world in maintaining hegemony in the Mideast Oil Fields. As Yoshie has pointed out, there is _still_ no real "anti-war" faction within the u.s. ruling elites. And remember old cliches about wounded beasts.
Be afraid! Be very afraid!
Carrol