Conspiracy Theory
I love a good conspiracy theory. Most prove to
be hoaxes or urban legends, but they're fun
nonetheless. And the best of them really stretch
your mind. And now I've got my own conspiracy
theory about one aspect of the war in Iraq.
Today, I tuned in to Bill O'Reilly's "Radio
Factor" during my lunch break, and listened to the
commentator express shock that many members of the
Iraqi leadership have ostensibly been able to flee
across the Iraqi border into Syria. Why didn't the
Americans assume control of the border sooner, he
wondered. Apparently there's only one road into
Syria, so on the surface, it seems like it would
indeed have been easy for a platoon of American
and/or British paratroopers to jump in and take
control of the Iraq-Syria border early on in the
war. It has been no secret that Syria is Iraq's
friendliest neighbor, and would be the natural
place to go if Iraqi leaders had to flee on the
ground.
So... could coalition forces only do so much?
Was there some simple reason to explain their
failure to plug the hole before Saddam and his
cronies slipped through it? Or could there be a
deeper, more sinister rationale behind this
apparent mistake?
Suppose one has one's sights on Syria as a
terrorist-friendly regime. Though the country is
not part of President Bush's "Axis of Evil," it is
a card-carrying member of the "Axis of Wanting to
Be as Evil as the Axis of Evil." Taking care of
North Korea will be a delicate, drawn-out matter.
The best course of action with regard to Iran might
be a "wait and see" approach. So that leaves Syria
"on deck" in the War on Terror. But with the
diplomatic difficulties the U.S. faced in trying to
oust the regime of a brutal dictator like Saddam
Hussein, how could we possibly make a case for an
invasion and/or regime change in Syria? The answer
is simple, if you're a conspiracy theorist.
Let one's coalition forces run amok in Iraq,
invading from the north and south, cutting a swath
across the country and taking control of town after
town. All the while, leave a clear path to Syria
wide open, seemingly by mistake, so the key members
of Saddam's regime (including, perhaps, a
non-decapitated Saddam) can flee into pesky little
Syria. Knowing Syria's pro-Iraq/anti-U.S. leanings,
one can predict with a fair degree of certainty
that Syria would disclaim any knowledge of the
presence of such war fugitives on its soil, deny
any involvement in harboring these wanted men.
Suddenly, the U.S. has a very good case for
invading Syria, assuming circumstantial evidence
can be produced to show that the Iraqi leaders are
indeed hiding in Syria.
Granted, my knowledge of foreign policy and
geo-politics is rather limited, and my main
expertise lies in the "what if" scenarios of
science fiction and creative writing. But it does
seem a compelling possibility to contemplate that
the Bush administration purposely allowed the Iraqi
leadership to flee into Syria in order to justify a
future invasion of that country. It would certainly
be a cunning plan. I guess we'll have to wait and
see.
Development note: I've
noticed that this site doesn't look like it should
in Netscape Navigator. Rather than waste time
jury-rigging it to look right in a
soon-to-be-obsolete browser, I'll just add the
cliché "This site best viewed with Internet
Explorer."
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
