If you were advising the US government..?

[kentuck]

Where would you think the next attacks against the US might happen? Do you think it would be increased violence around Baghdad, between the different sects? More or less, much the same as before Saddam's murder? Or do you think that maybe some Sunnis, from perhaps neighboring countries may plan some attacks against American "interests" in other areas, perhaps in other more secure areas of Iraq? Maybe some oil interests or pipelines in Kurdistan? Or embassies in Egypt or Jordan? What targets would you protect against?

[NJCher]

1. economics

The world sees this is our weak spot. They could cut us off at the knees if they wanted to stop the Iraq war now.

After we're out of Iraq, they might consider options that are less harsh and extend a helping hand. After bush is out of office, that is.



Cher

[Warpy]

2. The world is right

and I'm terribly afraid that if Stupid tries to widen the war, the world will institute strict sanctions.

Think about it. We no longer make shoes. We no longer make cloth. We don't make adequate steel. We don't make many car replacement parts, computer parts, or anything else we use in our daily lives.

We do grow enough food, but if farmers are faced with sanctions, there will be fewer of them able to export it.

Shoot, even Big Pill has moved much of its manufacturing offshore.

In short, we are in serious economic trouble and the world has just about had enough of our little tin Jesus. It could get ugly.

[hootinholler]

6. "We do grow enough food, but if farmers are faced with sanctions,"

Did you mean Monsanto? or some of the other corporate farmers? I fear familiar farms are a thing of the past.

-Hoot

[Warpy]

10. There are still family farms, quite a few of them.

They will be gobbled up by ADM if the lack of an export market drives down the price they can get for their products.

The economic catastrophe farmers faced in the 1920s allowed the highly mechanized corporate farms to exist in the first place.

[The Traveler]

3. You're right

Thanks to the greed of corporate America, we have dismantled our manufacturing capabilities and now count on workers in other nations to manufacture goods and components critical to the operation of our economy. Obviously, this gives those other nations some leverage. Some day, they may choose to use it.

[jwirr]

9. I have long considered this issue one of National Security.

However, *ss and co. do not see it that way. I suspect this to will have to be a state/city issue addressed at the grassroots.

[EstimatedProphet]

4. No need for any

We're not going to get attacked as a way to change our foreign policy. We already have. OBL is laughing his ass off at us, watching how we have deliberately turned into everything he wanted us to turn into.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Actually, they don't have to do much. Bush&Co are doing it for them.

Just like the Vietnamese, the "insurgents", "jihadists", "mujahadeen", etc, understand that war isn't just about bombs, body counts, and parades.

They are winning, or already have won, on the political, social, and media parts of the equation. Or, to put it more realistically, Bush and his political and military cronies, have given them the victory out of sheer ineptitude, brutality, and blatant hypocrisy and dishonesty.

It is the common failure of military commanders to underestimate the "enemy". In this case, the "enemy" has become the people of Iraq and the Middle East who the geniuses in the White House and Pentagon have completely alienated.

The idiots still believe that they can either bamboozle or intimidate people by displays of faux "democracy" or "show trials". Unfortunately for them, they have again underestimated the "enemy" who can see with their own eyes, or turn on the TV to see what "bringing democracy" to Iraq has wrought.

As for "targets", America and it's "interests" are a target rich environment, far beyond Bush&Co's ability to protect.

[H2O Man]

7. If I had a say ....

I'd want our Congress and the Administration to listen -- very closely -- to some of the people who have been rejected in various ways over the past 6 years. I would put Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, and Valerie Plame Wilson at the top of the list.

[dave_p]

8. It's unanswerable

... because the purpose is a destabilisation which renders such answers irrelevant. The strategy is to make everything and everyone a target. Any non-target constitutes a failure of implementation. The purpose is not to protect, but to expand conflict. The dream is that no-one will be able to reject both sides, out of simple self-preservation. There is no advice to be given, no means of conciliation to be offered. This is a conflict like no other, in which both sides welcome casualties to either. This is no time for advice, it's time to say "No".