Another October suprise scenario

[teryang]

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind07092004.html

On War
The October Surprises
By WILLIAM S. LIND

<Shortly before I left Washington for the summer (in the good old days whose passing I regret, few stayed in Washington in summertime), my informal intelligence network gave me an interesting report: Iran was beginning to mass troops on the Iran-Iraq border. Did this portend overt Iranian intervention in Iraq? I said I didn't think so. Events in Iraq are not unfavorable to Iran, and the risks of direct intervention would be great.

However, there is a potential situation that could lead to Iranian intervention: if it were in response to an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction George Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November. <snip>

<If Israel plans to act this year, the Bush Administration may see a political opportunity it cannot pass up. At the very least it is likely to endorse the Israeli action, and it may well participate. So long as the neo-cons remain in power, Washington is little more than a suburb of Tel Aviv. And, in the Islamic world at least, an American disassociation from any action by Israel would not be believed. Israel and America are now perceived as one country.>

more

[ant]

1. If I were Bush...

...excuse me while I sell my soul to the devil...OK, if I were Bush, I don't know that launching an attack on ANOTHER country would be the wisest way to distract attention from my other failing war. That just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to draw attention away from your miserable foreign policy you don't want to make that policy even more controversial. I suspect such a move would cost him whatever undecided voters there are out there.

I don't doubt that plans for strikes against Iranian nuke facilities are on a shelf somewhere, but my guess would be that they're on hold until after the election.

I could see Israel doing it on their own, but they might take the above political considerations into account and also wait until after the election.

[teryang]

2. Such an attack could unravel

The proxy move by Israel is more likely than an American move but an Israeli attack cannot take place without at least covert cooperation from American Armed Forces.

However, high risk moves to obtain and augment power are what this regime is all about. They haven't been all that concerned with intermediate or long term consequences, as long as the immediate political pay off is there.

I think this dangerous potential is why a some very wealthy Americans are starting to feel uncomfortable with Bushco.

[ant]

4. what's the immediate political pay off?

I agree with what you've said, I just disagree that this would help Bush in the election. I don't think the American public would react well to news that the US is involved in attacking yet another country. His problem is that people are doubting him for what he's done in Iraq, and I don't see how starting another war would be the solution to that. He needs to distract by either having something happen in a completely different arena - domestically, for instance, like some dramatic economic recovery or another attack - or he needs a success in his foreign policy, like the capture of Bin Laden. Another controversial/questionable act wouldn't seem wise to me, and the risks seem to big for something right before an election.

:shrug:

[lojasmo]

10. U.S. involvement would be covert.

The U.S. would be beholden/entitled to back Isreal. We would be "drawn into" the conflict.

[ant]

11. if it's covert then how would it help in the election?

If people don't know about it, if it's secret, how can it qualify as an October surprise?

On edit, I just reread your post and realize you're saying our initial involvement would be covert and then we'd get involved overtly for the Oct surprise. Eh...I still don't really see it as helping Bush. Involvement would not be necessary, meaning it would still be Bush's choice. If Iran were to attack first, that's different, but if Israel starts it...I just don't think the public would receive this well. Our military is stretched thin as it is, so at the very least you'd have the uniforms speaking out. That's never good.

[lojasmo]

14. Sure it would help bush

The public will rally around a wartime president. At least they historically will be called upon to do so. Democrats will be painted as unpatriotic.

[bemildred]

5. FWIW I agree with Mr. Ant here.

The American electorate is already much to aroused for the
comfort of the ruling class, and more war will make it more
so. I don't think a putsch would go smoothly, either. The
drift I see in the "News" is all aimed at calming things down,
which may be easily contrasted with the propaganda lead-up to
the current Iraq fandango and it's predecessors.

[ant]

12. that's Ms. Ant, actually

Ms. Jackson if you're nasty. ;)

[bemildred]

13. My apologies, I'll try to remember.

I am very nasty, but not on DU.
:hi:

[bemildred]

3. Dupe, sort of, other comments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x61434

[teryang]

6. Thanks

It is a dupe, I should have checked.

[bemildred]

7. Hey, its a good piece ... nt

[TheTruthBeKnown]

8. WILL GOP FAKE ATTACK???

WILL GOP FAKE ATTACK???

Will the GOP fake a terrorist attack if Bush is trailing badly in the polls? I believe so. The GOP will do anything to retain control over our government. Everyone in the executive branch is evil enough to direct the bombing of US citizens and then blaming it on terrorists. They could use chemical, biological, nuclear or conventional weapons agaisnt US citizens. The GOP has used fear in a masterful way since 9-11. They have surpassed even the Nazis proficiency in using scare tactics to control their people.

Wake up people... the country you save will be your own.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi TheTruthBeKnown!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: