Well, the problem is that the US has settled on Iraq as a target, isn't it.
If it was North Korea, (not that this is "best case," but still) there'd be a chance of fomenting rebellion using disenfranchised citizens and nervous South Koreans as proxies.
But I don't think the US is about to make any overtures to Iran, who'd be the logical choice for that sort of indirect war/rebellion thing in Iraq. Since Iran is also on that famous axis.
I consult the crystal ball.
Best case (probable): US waits for UN backing, acts as part of a much larger coalition, does a little bombing, marches on Baghdad, one month later sets up a UN military governor who rules until first free elections in, oh, four years or so.
Best case (miraculous): Saddam blinks, flees into exile in the middle of the night without a single shot fired. Stretches of northern Iraq are formed into Kurdistan, a homeland for the Kurds (who don't do so well in Iran or Turkey either, you know), while parts of western Iraq are used in a land-swap deal with Jordan to create a larger homeland for the Palestinians. (Like the Palestinians want to move over the river, but still....) The Iraqi people form their own government on a new model, somewhere between the everybody-rules, everybody-serves system of direct democracy and the hands-off Council of Elders motif of libertarian anarcho-syndicalism. Bolstered by immense oil wealth, the system becomes a beacon of hope for all freedom-loving people everywhere, and easily survives the transition to a non-petroleum-based world economy. |