Blogs > Cambodia and Laos Revisited?

Dec 27, 2003

Cambodia and Laos Revisited?



I remain reasonably confident that the politicos in the White House, as opposed to the maniacal ideologues, will shy away from an expanded, protracted Middle East conflict, for fear of the tremendous political dangers that would accrue from being seen as authoring  a long, costly new foreign military quagmire. Big business may weigh in, too, wary of the impact on the economy and Shrub's pro-corporate domestic agenda.

There are, nevertheless, some tremendously frightening signs that a wider, multi-front conflict might be rapidly developing. Predictably, our enemies in other countries we have recently invaded or denounced are taking advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq:

  • In Afghanistan, where it's obvious that our past liberation efforts were a trifle less complete than we have been led to believe over here, attacks on the foreign troops defending the post-Taliban government are escalating. 
  • In Pakistan, radical Islamist groups are on the comeback trail. and there is little that Gen. Musharraf, one of those friendly, non-rogue dictators, can do about it. He may not even want to, and it seems certain that his Islamist-oriented army doesn't. 
  • On the East Asian front, North Korea is testing missiles and doubtless planning further provocations while we are tied up elsewhere.
  • Incredibly, U.S. leaders have taken this particular moment to shake their fists at Syria and Iran for some possible minor aid to Iraq. Originally the concern was night-vision goggles, but yesterday suggestions were issued that Syria or Iran might be the home of the grail of U.S. military legitimacy, the fabled Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Having already taken many rapid steps into their own Vietnam-style quagmire, can Rummy, Shrub, and company really be contemplating their own Cambodia and Laos so soon?  The claim that Syria and Iran were harboring Iraqi weapons came from an Israeli general, but it was Rumsfeld and Colin Powell who made the threats. 

Based on the arguments used to launch the invasion of Iraq, any real or (to use a favorite administration adjective) "credible" evidence of such harboring would seem to almost demand an expansion or extension of the war, no matter what the politicos say. Then some real dominoes would start falling, the kind that could keep us militarily embroiled for the foreseeable future.

UPDATE: My point just below is echoed by a Working for Change piece by someone called Geov Parrish, "The six day war: Why America has already lost its war against Iraq":


Historians won't call this The Six Days' War; that name belongs to another Middle Eastern military rout with far-reaching consequences.

But by last Wednesday, the outcome of George Bush's invasion of Iraq was decided. The only remaining unknowns are how many months or years it will take America and Britain to figure out that they have already lost, and how many people will die in the interim.



comments powered by Disqus