McFreedom

Steve Den Beste has posted his reaction to the State of the Union address. In short, he's very disappointed and concerned - he expected Mr. Bush to announce we were going to war; he's been expecting the troops to begin moving in the next few days. He's concerned that he's been misreading motives, that we're losing our nerve (possibly with good, nuclear-armed-Saddam reason).

Mr. Den Beste is an insightful commentator. One of my brothers commented to me the other week that the Captain of the USS Clueless often says things that cause him to see the world in a different way, and that he is then frustrated by all the people who don't see it. Like the folks who currently think France is in some sort of strong position right now because the US "has to" go back to the UN Security Council before invading Iraq. Mr. Den Beste has shown quite ably that these people are reading the situation the way they want it, not the way it is.

I think all that's happened here is that the timetable isn't as aggressive as Mr. den Beste thought. I've thought this for a couple of weeks, but haven't had time to blog much, between being sick and working. I realize the credibility of retroactive prognosticators is slim, so I won't try to get big points for my prediction. For example, we have this story on CNN from yesterday, which quotes "Pentagon officials" as saying that the military will be ready for an invasion by mid-to-late February, and that if events force our hand between now and then, we'll have limited options. I've been of the opinion that the invasion would be in late February since back this summer, based on arguments of weather - we want as much time to build up as possible, but enough time to get it done before the weather changes. So, while I hoped Mr. Den Beste was right in his accelerated timeline - I want this to be over with - I've always been expecting this to take another few weeks for us to get it all together.

In my view, Mr. Bush was sitting there watching fading poll numbers with a speech he had to give anyway. The American people have made it pretty clear that they want us to work with allies and the U.N. I don't believe it matters in the long run if we do - as long as we win fast, with few casualties on either side, the victory parades in Baghdad and the stories of abject suffering are going to wipe out any sour memories in the US electorate. I also believe that Mr. Bush knows that. Still, why set out to poke the electorate in the eye with a sharp stick if you don't have to?

There is also the matter of international diplomacy. I've suspected for some time - and now firmly believe - that our strategy on not handing information over to UNSC has been so that we can force UN action by dropping some bombshells on them - much as we did with Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mr. den Beste has recently hoped that we'll simply go into Iraq without the UN - because that would effectively mean the end of the UN. While that may be one of his goals, I don't believe it's one of Mr. Bush's goals. He's tired of dickering with the UN, but he's going to go in there on February 5^th with an overwhelming amount of evidence, and they are going to vote to go to war. Because they already know we're going to do it, anyway, and none of them wants the UN to go the way of the League of Nations.

My take is, this doesn't change much. We're still going into Iraq at the beginning of March (and, for all you new-moon-at the beginning of February fans, they'll be another one on March 3). We're going in with the full support of the UN Security Council. I'll predict right now we'll have a second UNSC resolution authorizing force, with France (and maybe Russia and China) abstaining from the vote. And, if we don't, we'll go in ourselves. But France knows as well as we do that it would mean the end of the UN, which is the only place they have any vestiges of power, so they won't let that happen.

But have no fear: Barring a coup, there will be American boots on Iraqi soil by the ides of March. I'm making this prediction in advance.