I’m really bad at predictions, of figuring out what’s going to happen next in the movie I’m watching or the book I’m reading (or the game I’m playing in). I tend to take things on face value, as they come along.
(Margie, it must be noted, regularly figures these sorts of things out way before I do. “Oh, it’s Ben.” “Huh?” “Ben. He’s the figure they saw by the boat house.” “Wait, the boat house? Ben?” “Yup.”)
So bear that in mind as I go through the following.
I’ve been reading a fair amount of consternation about the massive US military build-up near Afghanistan. The consensus of everyone from the doves to the folks who know anything about Afghanistan is that we’ve more than enough ordinance there already, and there are so few targets to throw it at that we’re only going to make “the rubble bounce.”
So is it all just meant as saber-rattling? As a public show for the folks back home? As a delaying method while we figure out where to hit?
Karnak the Magnificent predicts … we’re targeting Iraq.
Consider. There have been a number of shadowy, downplayed reports that indicate that Iraq may have been a (if not the) key player in the 9-11 attacks. They certainly have the motivation to do so, both for revenge and to pull some of the pressure off of them (depending on how things went with Afghanistan, Iraq could offer to assist in return for eased sanctions, or, more likely, try to rally the Muslim world around its own cause as an extension of the Afghan conflict). And they’ve certainly showed the callous disregard for life to pull something like 9-11 off.
The biggest problem in the US dealing with Iraq, though, is that there’s been increasing lack of interest (officially) in the Gulf for taking further action, or even maintaining the embargo regimen in place. And to really do a job on Iraq would require a slow, massive military build-up in the region which would be both obvious and lengthy, and give the Iraqis plenty of time to play all the diplomatic demogoguery cards they could.
A slow, massive military build-up.
After which, we can (relatively) turn on a dime and hit whomever we’re intending to hit, assuming they are the sorts who can be hit with the armada assembled.
What exactly is being discussed behind closed doors during the US’ diplomatic full-court press? What evidence is being presented? Is bin Laden really the target? The primary target? Is there a reason why we’re still only referring to him as “the prime suspect”? Is there a reason why very few people are talking about Iraq? Or why there’s been a remarkably heavy veil of secrecy over exactly what we’re going to try to do?
Like I said, my Predict-o-meter is not terribly reliable. Take this with a grain of salt. Your Mileage May Vary. Void Where Prohibited.