Michel's Commentary

11/26/2001  888WebToday  G.I. Joe is making a come back early in this Christmas season.  Consumer surveys indicate that Hasbro's plastic warrior has moved into the 4th place among action figures sold as toys up from 8th place the same time last year.

This is one small cue that the American people are in a fighting mood, and that the President's War on Terrorism will be able to sustain itself in popularity with the American public should President Bush now seek to extend it beyond Afghanistan.

From the very beginning of our unique War Against Terrorism, there has been a policy debate within the President's own councils.  On the one hand, we have Secretary of State Colin Powell, who wants to limit American retribution to punishing those immediately involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11th.  He and the President's father were both concerned with what the elder Bush referred to as "mission creep" during Operation Desert Storm.  By "mission creep" he meant the unfortunate tendency to enlarge upon your original goals when waging a successful war, thereby prolonging unnecessarily the fighting, and becoming entangled in the unforeseen consequences of trying to meet your re-defined objectives.  During Desert Storm, Powell had doubts about the wisdom of getting involved in a land war with Iraq at all; neither he nor the elder Bush were interested in having America occupy Iraq, and making the country a protectorate of the United States for the foreseeable future. That would have been a horrific case of "mission creep", and the President's father avoided it, even at the expense of being derided ever thereafter for "saving" Saddam Hussein when he could have toppled him.

On the other hand, a host of White House advisors from Candoleeza Rice to Richard Perleman seem inclined to have us seize the opportunity to do now what his father would not do a decade ago.

There is no conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks.  But those who want to rock and roll with Iraq are not deterred by any such lack of evidence.  It is enough for them that Saddam is said to be accumulating "weapons of mass destruction" and can assume to be friendly with the goals of the terrorists.

With the war in Afghanistan winding down and public opinion still behind further military action against terrorism, Iraq would seem a logical target. It would also provide a grand opportunity for the present George Bush, in the White House, to settle the old score between Saddam and the former Bush in the White House.

The senior Bush did not want "mission creep" and did not want to rule over a defeated Iraq.  We may discover that we will have our hands full deciding what to do with Afghanistan once Osama bin Laden is laid low. In fighting our War against terrorism, we could find ourselves like Great Britain in the 19th Century - acquiring an empire in a "fit of absentmindedness."

If we topple Saddam, we will have to choose between an American protectorate in the Middle East - or walking away and leaving behind us a dangerous power vacuum.  We will be between Iraq and a hard place.

Those are my thoughts .....

Send your comments to:  info@micheltalk.com
Web site: www.micheltalk.com

Permission granted to publish or broadcast this column in whole or part with attribution to  WebToday.
http://www.888webtoday