It was just before Halloween that President Bush trotted out the specter of World War III. Somehow, his remark that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" was more in the spirit of the holiday than he probably intended. It was certainly scarier than any costume or haunted house.
If he wants to play war games, let's do it. Undoubtedly, there are dozens of people around Washington playing scenarios, so we might as well join in. Consider this one version of the Bush Doomsday Scenario.
In the not-too-distant future, there will be a large attack on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. It will probably be a bomb, or multiple bombs. Casualties will be many, and it will be messy. Evidence will be discovered in the carnage that the weapons came from Iran. This isn't new, as the Bush administration has made the allegation before. But now, with the increased damage, Bush, Vice President Cheney, and congressional Republicans step up the rhetoric.
"My duty is to protect Americans," the president will say. "Iran is a danger to us all. They are endangering out troops. Their desire to have nuclear weapons endangers the world." He will trot out Secretary of State Rice to warn the Iranian government to open their borders to permit inspectors or face the consequences. She earnestly wishes for "productive diplomacy." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejects the American requests.
The rest of the world starts to get nervous. Crude oil prices start to rise to $110, $125, $130, in anticipation of a U.S. strike. Gas at the pump reaches $5.50 per gallon. Layoffs ensue, the recession picks up.
The president will come on TV to announce that he has new evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and that he believes the government is on the way to acquiring nuclear weapons. He orders a "surgical strike" at suspected development facilities as a warning to Iran.
Iran, a country four times the size of Iraq, with a population of about 69 million, retaliates. It has an army of about 345,000, or about twice the force size of what we have in Iraq. Iran conducts a massive counter-attack across the Iraqi border, coordinating with Shi'a militia inside Iraq. U.S. troops and the private security guards take heavy casualties as their undermanned positions are overrun. Even the Halliburton cooks are given rifles, although they are useless as soldiers. The butcher's bill is steep.
The president will come on TV again, this time to report the grievous losses of our troops, to blame the tragedy on Iran and to say we must renew our commitment to fighting the global war on terror, and orders more strikes into Iran and more troops to the region.
There is no limit in sight to the rise in oil prices, our people are getting killed and the economy is plunged into free fall. The Middle East is aflame. Israel is on alert, Pakistan descends farther into chaos.
Freeze frame. It's easy enough to continue developing the scenario, but here's the key question, asked in all seriousness. What is to keep this from happening? You have a president with a messianic complex and a vice president who hungers for power and control. They get their way at every turn using their toxic, but effective, brew of patriotism and fear.
Would Congress do it? How many senators or representatives would be bold enough to step in and say that we escalated the war and it's time to leave before the disaster is total? Maybe a bare majority of Senate Democrats, and even that's in question. What is not in question is that Republicans won't. They and Joe Lieberman will stick by their president and will speechify that "islamofascism," whatever that is, must be stopped by any means and our troops must be avenged. Republican senators would block any efforts to cut off funds or otherwise withdraw our troops. Republican presidential candidates would chime in with the same tune.
Democrats can't stop a war by themselves. They haven't so far. In this admittedly pessimistic scenario, what would the Democrats, particularly the Bush Dogs who supported the Iraq war down the line, do as the country plunges into turmoil? What would the "moderates" do? Would they try to stop a war, or, more likely, would they be afraid of being seen as weak and not "supporting our troops," -- of abandoning the country in its hour of need? A Congress, which continually kneels before a president who has a 24 percent approval rating, deserves its own 11 percent approval rating.
Will any Democratic presidential candidates, particularly the leading ones, have the fortitude to say it's time to take a strategic retreat, or will they defend the spending of more human lives? Or would most of them find justifications for the conflict as our country and the world economy deteriorate?
We all hope none of this comes to pass. But it's worth taking a few minutes to think about.
Loading comments…
Posted November 8, 2007 | 10:27 AM (EST)