|
Limiting it to two possibile scenarios, which do you think is more likely (and please read them before you decide!):
1. BushCo intended some domination in the Middle East, but never thought they really needed the involvement of other powerful nations (look at the weak "coalition" they went with). They truly did think it'd be a "cakewalk," that the Iraqi people were too stupid to fight back, to fight each other, or to do anything but obey the US in setting up a new government, and thank us. But oops -- billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, we're in a quagmire, and for political reasons at home, need the Iraqi government such as it is (paging Chalabi!) to "ask us to leave" -- and off we go, declaring victory (leaving just enough forces behind to guard Halliburton's oil interests).
The perfect "cut and run!" Civil war escalates, Iran becomes more involved, Syria exerts more influence, Turkey gets concerned, Israel feels threatened, and terrorist networks that thrive on chaos grow, and it threatens Europe. The UN has to get involved in an effort to stem the mess the US created and left behind, and the governments of nations like Pakistan, Egypt, India, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia feel pressure from their people to take a stand. Russia, supplier of Iran's nuclear plants, is inherently involved in the conflict; and while all this is happening, how does North Korea seek advantage? And what is China doing? This WWIII, whatever it'd look like, would be an OOPS -- a result of BushCo's incompetence.
2. BushCo intended to spark WWIII. The word "crusade," the phrase "Axis of Evil," the unnecessary invasion of Iraq were intended to create conflict between Christianity and Islam, or oil-poor nations and oil-rich nations, or wealthy "developed" nations and poorer populations of third-world nations -- or all three. The intent of the Iraq invasion was to light a match in a shaky tinderbox and catch the world on fire. As other nations feel the heat -- the ensuing chaos threatening them in various ways, from security to politics to economics etc., more or less as described above -- they join in by necessity to protect themselves, their interests and alliances.
BushCo intends to stay put in Iraq until other nations are compelled to come onboard, after Iran, Syria and North Korea turn up the heat further; they fully expect Russia and China to become involved, but figure the US will accept a draft in the case of a world war, the EU will provide an allied victory, and in the end the US will be seen not as the instigator of WWIII, but as the savior of the world who led allies to exterminate "evil." The result is that other nations will have enabled, even welcomed, the US to set up "shop" in countries that were brought in -- as above, countries that could include Pakistan, Egypt, India, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. This WWIII, whatever it'd look like, would be a result of BushCo design.
Please do explain your own scenarios in posts, but meanwhile please humor me and stay with these two for the poll in voting...
|