Cowboys don’t stay in one place for too long. Indeed, the very nature of the cowboy is motion. On the occasion that some rogue decided to break the pattern of moving by settling in a new town, they were inevitably run out of town by the local sheriff.
So make public opinion the sheriff. The cowboy; cowboy diplomacy.
The Bush administration’s plan for eliminating terrorism was originally supported by the American people (as long as by ‘American people’ we mean at least some of them). Like President Bush’s approval rating though, the administration’s policy of action > nonaction has lately begun to suffer. Americans are tired of loosing people in Iraq, especially when the war actually ended years ago. Worse, the once left-wing idea that we should attempt to negotiate with countries which we believe are a threat (North Korea and Iran top the list currently) has found support within the president’s own administration.
Now that the sheriff is effectively removing the cowboy from the states, where will it go? Neoconservatives, the main proponents of cowboy diplomacy, are not through with the Middle East. The popular opinion amongst neo-cons seems to be something like ‘An Islamist state is not a free state, however, it Is a threat to the Unites States.’ Without pulling punches, this roughly means “Sunni states are fine. Shiite states are terrorist threats.” Consisting of Syria, Iran, and Palestine, these Shiite states must, according to neoconservative thinking, be dealt with as soon as possible. But the cowboy was moving.
Proponents of cowboy diplomacy couldn’t have wished for more than what happens next in our story. The cowboy moved to Israel. Even though American public opinion has begun to frown on preemptive attacks, neo-cons might get their war with Syria, and if things go extremely well for them, Iran.
Recent statements by the newly elected Israeli prime minister bear the form of President Bush’s statements immediately following the attacks of 09/11/01. While the president has not publicly backed Israel’s attack on Beirut, he has stated that he would not deny a country the right to defend itself.
I hope nothing I’ve yet written reeks of conspiracy theory. I don’t go for them. I do believe, however, that, all things being equal, people tend towards their best interests.
Right now, the best interest of several large American corporations is to stay at war with someone. As the spending of money to influence political action is free speech, those who spend the most tend to get their wishes more often than not. If this is true, and I believe I am not off the mark, then right now, cash is being promised and spent by these corporations to encourage the Israeli government’s aggression.
I really hope the follow does not happen:
The Israeli prime minister decides to treat any country that aides Hezbollah as a threat (similar to the US doctrine that ‘any country that harbors terrorists will be treated as a terrorist itself’). Israel declares war on the two largest supporters of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. As Israel cannot possibly win a three-front war, the United States decides to come to the aide of Israel. More troops are sent to the Middle East in order to fight two countries that have never threatened the United States. Taken as an attack on the Muslim world (which I believe it would rightly be reckoned), Islamic leaders declare the US enemies. The 130,000 troops in Iraq become hostages in a foreign country overnight
