Due anni fa esatti, scrissi qui questo:

Il cinquantunesimo stato

Se gli Stati Uniti attaccano l’Iraq, e vincono, poi cosa fanno? A questa domanda usata strumentalmente da una parte ed elusa dall’altra cerca di rispondere James Fallows sul prossimo Atlantic Monthly. E la faccenda è complicata. Formidabile articolo, e – avvisàti – lungo.

Il sommario dell’articolo di Fallows diceva così:

“Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq’s borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?”

Atlantic Monthly

(certo, anche Thomas Friedman aveva i suoi dubbi: "In the worst case, we crack Iraq open and it falls apart in our hands, with all its historical internal tensions — particularly between its long-ruling Sunni minority and its long-frustrated Shiite majority. In that case, George Bush will have to become Iraq’s strongman — the iron fist that holds the country together, gradually redistributes the oil wealth and supervises a much longer transition to democracy".)
New York Times