> This has all the ingredients of a grand historical drama. Clearly,
> with all its might (wealth, productive and destructive force), even
> with ten times the "surge" proposed by Bush, the U.S. would not be
> able to keep together a puppet government in Iraq. Not for long.
> This is because people are not just background noise. If there's a
> draft, you risk overt youth rebellion, or you inject right into the
> armed forces (as if the current, unprecedented discord in the armed
> forces weren't enough). If you increase the public debt, something
> gives: inflation, taxes, economic slowdown, currency wars, etc.
Of course, the other factor is the insurgency in Iraq, which will co-evolve, adapt to any "surges." I was just reading last night in Mexico's La Jornada that Muqtada al-Sadr is saying that they're ready to deal with the "surge."
> I think that if Bush invaded Iraq (again, under current
> circumstances), he'd be required to overtly subvert the constitutional
> system that has served the ruling class so well until now. Assuming
> that he could, *that* would end up being an even bigger historical
> disaster for the ruling class.
Obviously, I meant to say that if Bush invaded *Iran*.