Could It Get Worse?
Posted by
KTK
Apparently there’s a British film coming out soon that takes a fictional look back, from an imaginary future, at the consequences of an assassination of George W. Bush late this year, and the subsequent (imagined) course of events.
It’s an interesting premise, one that I’ve wondered about occasionally. “President Dick Cheney” is a truly terrifying phrase, but at least he’s an adult and he’s not a religious nutter. I had casually imagined that his ascension into office would result in a return of economics-based Republicanism, back-burnering the whackos, and open season for Haliburton from then on. All in all, that’s not as bad as it could be (like, now, for instance).
This new film sees things rather differently, however. It’s provocative (though perhaps, from what I can tell, a bit over-the-top, and I say this as a proud and unrepentant GOP-hater), and I think worth giving some thought to whether or not, in the end, their predictions are realistic.
The Daily Mail has an article about the film. (I have to confess, the intro is so vague that I can’t quite tell whether they’re summarizing the film or simply asking someone to speculate on their own about its basic premise. Either way, it’s an interesting article.) They give an historian’s summary of events under the scenario in question - Bush is killed by an assassin with Arabic heritage in late 2006, and Cheney takes over. Whether or not any of this is plausible, it offers an interesting vision of how some Brits see things, at least.
BEFORE that fateful day — November 9, 2006 — historians liked to say the world could never again lurch into global crisis because of one man’s death, as it had in 1914 when Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand was murdered in Sarajevo, sparking World War I.
The assassination of John Kennedy at the height of the Cold War hadn’t led to Armageddon in 1963, so why should things spiral out of control now if a president was murdered? That confident view was shattered as . . . [t]he murder of George W. Bush set off a global crisis with which we still live today, ten years after he was killed. . . .
Few people in America needed to know more than that the suspected killer of their President was Syrian-born. As the spotlight of blame focused on Syria, regarded by Americans as Iran’s poodle, the Iranian Foreign Ministry didn’t help its cause by issuing a perfunctory statement expressing regret that the President had ‘died in a violent manner’ and hoping that the American people would soon choose a new one who would be more peace-loving. . . .
But what hurt Americans most was the Europeans’ lack of grief. Officially, Europe, from Brussels to Berlin and Paris, expressed sorrow and outrage, and President Chirac led the EU mourners in Washington.
But there was nothing like the sadness which greeted Kennedy’s murder four decades earlier.
Despite Britain’s own experience of Islamic terrorism, the public response to the murder of the American president here was muted, at best — and in some quarters, not all Muslim, it was joyful. . . .
At home and abroad, the gloating over Bush’s death soon gave way to a sober realisation that he had actually been a check on Dick Cheney’s ruthless way of defending America from enemies at home or abroad.
Executive orders authorising detention without trial of citizens as well as aliens suspected of ‘terrorist affiliations’ and closing America’s borders were signed off with astonishing alacrity, as were military plans to strike regimes that had celebrated Bush’s death. . . .
Fighting Iran turned out to be much bloodier than the blitzkrieg against Saddam’s Iraq.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had learned the lessons of Hezbollah’s war with Israel. They avoided head-on confrontation with the U.S. Army’s armoured columns. Ambush and sabotage were their weapons. . . .
Oil prices went on climbing steadily, and no one needs reminding that petrol today is still £3 a litre here and that David Cameron’s ‘green is the colour of national security’ government only lets you buy 30 litres a week. . . .
Even as U.S. planes and cruise missiles struck at targets across Iran, American naval power went into action against Iran’s ally Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. A wave of protests swept Latin America. Chaos engulfed much of Mexico, sending waves of refugees north to the American border.
US troops tried to keep them out and ’suspect types’ were shipped to Guantanamo Bay for screening.
The Guantanamo Bay camp was enlarged to accommodate the internees. Castro’s regime protested. The ailing Fidel wasn’t really in charge any more and his brother, Raul, tried to boost his own public image by organising a mass march to the U.S. base. . . .
What happened next is disputed. The U.S. Marines guarding the camp claimed Cuban secret policemen shot at the people trying to climb into the base to stop them escaping from communism. The Cuban authorities said their security forces opened fire to defend the protesters, who were being attacked by the Yankee soldiers. Soon 113 people, including women and children, were dead.
The ‘Guantanamo Massacre’ provoked outrage in Havana. Cheney told Rumsfeld to ’swat’ Castro’s regime once and for all. Another war of liberation broke out.
The backlash from these attempts to resolve America’s foreign problems with decisive military strikes overshadowed the domestic impact of Bush’s death. Iranian and Arab Americans weathered the wave of revenge pogroms set off by the assassination, but the bureaucracy of Homeland Security extended its surveillance over them, and pretty well anyone else.
Cheney’s re-election campaign in 2008 was conducted in a virtual state of emergency, with him addressing the Republican convention by 3D video link from a secure location. The mood of ongoing crisis, combined with the choice of Jeb Bush as his Vice President, widely seen in America as a tribute to the slain President, ensured him a landslide. . . .
Any thoughts?
While there may be requisite mourning, a team doesn’t change its tenor or abilities because the head cheerleader is shot.
Comment 9/2/2006