There have been many events in history that have created ideological and political vacuums.

TheFrenchRevolutionaries, with their quest for "autonomousfreedom",created a lawand order order vacuum that was filled when Napoleon Bonaparte tookover.

The abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm ll at the end of WW1created a void inthe hearts and minds of the Germanpeople that theWeimar Republic could not fill. A charismatic leader named Adolf Hitlerwas able tomake the Germans feel invincible again.

Thecollapseof the Qing Dynasty in 1911 was followed by decades of internalstruggle combined with foreign occupation before Mao came to powerinChina in 1949.

More recently, Iraq was ruled by a Baathistleader named SaddamHussein, who was the undisputed ruler of Iraqfrom1979 to 2003. His  rule would have probably continued untilthe conclusion of his natural life if it had not been for U.S.intervention,followed by his even more murderous sons taking it fromthere.

The absence of Saddam Hussein and the overthrow ofBaathist rule creates a tremendous vacuum. How many factions are therethat wouldlike to fill that vacuum? How many of these factions can beaccurately labeled as terrorist organizations?

The GWOT is inopposition to a terrorist mentality that wishes to destroy the UnitedStates and Israel.This war can be fought on many fronts in diversenations throughout north Africa, southwest Asia, and the islands ofIndonesia; wherever "pockets"of militant Jihadists are known to exist.

Or,is it possible to create an ideological/political vacuum that is sopowerful that it draws every nation and every faction that wishes todestroy us into a single geographic area for the purpose of conflict?Iam assuming that the nations and the factions that wish to destroytheUnited States are the same ones who wish to fill thepolitical/ideological vacuum created bythe overthrow of theSaddamregime.

With this "vacuum theory" in mind, here are some frquently asked questions in regard to the GWOT:

Is Iraq only the first step of the GWOT, a step that will be repeated in many nations in future decades?

IsIraq nothing more than a staging area, a "jumping off" point formilitary operations in diverse locations of the 10/40 window ofAfricaand Asia?

Is it possible that Iraq can have a stablegovernment and the UnitedStates can consider itself safe from terrorismwhen this conflict comes to a conclusion?

And finally, Is it possible that this conflict will ever have a conclusion?
          <!--/message-->                                                                                                         <!--editnote-->               
               

---

I worry about these things too.  I think the answer to the first question is that Iraq was initially intented to be only one piece of the larger war, but the aftermath of the military invasion was far more difficult to settle than anyone anticipated.  I imagine the idea of moving on to another piece of the puzzle was probably shelved, at least until Ahmedinejad began his quest for nuclear arms and started his rhetoric of wiping Israel off the map and "Death to America".  This kinda forces our hand in regard to potential military action against Iran.

As for a great, charismatic leader who is not hostile to the U.S. to fill the power vacuum in Iraq, I think we've failed to ensure that that happens.  Maliki is a lap-dog of Muqtada Al-Sadr, our ENEMY.

President Bush likes to claim that this was the Iraqi choice via elections, and that Iraq is now a sovereign nation.  That is total B.S..  When our military is in another country, and when our boys give their lives to defend or bring freedom to that country - WE are in charge.  WE get to decide who the ruler is, for good or for ill. And if the Iraqis choose someone unacceptable to US; WE have the right & obligation to remove that clown.

Just because Iraqis voted for a toady of Al-Sadr, doesn't mean we have to live with that choice - certainly not while our troops are still ultimately in control of the country.  The Palestinians recently had a choice to elect a new leader & new party after Murderer Arafat died.  Who did they vote for?  HAMAS!  F**k that!

I don't have a good answer to any of the other questions you pose.  I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the war we're engaged in by the Bush Administration.  I also think that all of our successes in this war could potentially disintegrate like a house of cards under the right (wrong) circumstances.

We live in dangerous times, and I don't believe that the world has the leadership to handle it.

Eyas wrote:I worry about these things too.  I think theanswer to the first question is that Iraq was initially intented to beonly one piece of the larger war, but the aftermath of the militaryinvasion was far more difficult to settle than anyoneanticipated.  I imagine the idea of moving on to anotherpiece of the puzzle was probably shelved, at least until Ahmedinejadbegan his quest for nuclear arms and started his rhetoric of wipingIsrael off the map and "Death to America".  This kinda forcesour hand in regard to potential military action against Iran.

Asfor a great, charismatic leader who is not hostile to the U.S. to fillthe power vacuum in Iraq, I think we've failed to ensure that thathappens.  Maliki is a lap-dog of Muqtada Al-Sadr, our ENEMY.

PresidentBush likes to claim that this was the Iraqi choice via elections, andthat Iraq is now a sovereign nation.  That is totalB.S..  When our military is in another country, and when ourboys give their lives to defend or bring freedom to that country - WEare in charge.  WE get to decide who the ruler is, for goodor for ill. And if the Iraqis choose someone unacceptable to US; WEhave the right & obligation to remove that clown.

Justbecause Iraqis voted for a toady of Al-Sadr, doesn't mean we have tolive with that choice - certainly not while our troops are stillultimately in control of the country.  The Palestiniansrecently had a choice to elect a new leader & new party afterMurderer Arafat died.  Who did they votefor?  HAMAS!  F**k that!

I don't have agood answer to any of the other questions you pose.  I thinkthere's a fundamental misunderstanding of the war we're engaged in bythe Bush Administration.  I also think that all of oursuccesses in this war could potentially disintegrate like a house ofcards under the right (wrong) circumstances.

We live in dangerous times, and I don't believe that the world has the leadership to handle it.

It looks like the Iraq war will be a war of attrition.  Iraqwill have a stable government only if and when all of the malevolentfactions who wish to control that country are either destroyed ordemoralized.