Two things, the first would be Russia is a little too busy taking care of their own business to help anyone. The second, Bush has offered help in this crisis; if this aid turns into a serious allegiance between the two countries in the war on terror, favors will be granted. In that case there may be an obligation to send troops to Iraq and this troop deployment would probably be irregardless of who is in the White House. Just speculation.
I consider the China factor to be of paramount importance and although at present somewhat in the shadows the driving force behind all behavior. When Bush gives us a decade to attempt to achieve lasting military dominance don’t you think in reality it is somewhat less? Let the Chinese believe we have a ten year time frame but in truth plan for fewer years which would seem the better strategy. The eight ball is not yet in the corner pocket. China will affect the behavior of Russia toward the United States. Surely Russia realizes in the longer term they may end up needing us just as we might need them. As everyone keeps their eye on China’s impressive rise they are reluctant to burn too many bridges at present knowing they might have to cross them later.
The following is very telling. Would not a war with China not only be contingent on Taiwan but also on China’s willingness to put up with our ‘containment’ policy? Even if Taiwan is behaving itself wouldn’t China at some point get fed up looking out the window and seeing our bases and troops all over their backyard?
Containing China
The second vital interest revealed by the troop redeployment plan is the desire to contain Chinese bids for supremacy in East and Southeast Asia. The Bush administration's National Security Strategy is premised on the plausible expectation that the United States has a window of opportunity of approximately a decade to attempt to achieve lasting military dominance in the world, after which it will be faced by an uncontainable Chinese adversary. An increase of forces in Asia and a freeing of some of them from confronting North Korea is a signal to China that the United States is serious about containing China's regional ambitions. Again, the success of a containment strategy is uncertain, but it is reasonable in terms of U.S. interests to attempt to make it work.
Leaving China unopposed by significant force would give it the opportunity to attempt to achieve predominant influence in its region, damaging U.S. economic interests severely, possibly setting off the development of nuclear weapons by Japan and providing China with the geopolitical, economic and, eventually, military resources to challenge the United States as a superpower. It is also possible that U.S. decision makers believe that a preemptive military attack on North Korea is imprudent, not only because of the consequences of a peninsular war on South Korea, but because China might be drawn into the conflict. The road to Pyongyang -- if there is one -- runs through Beijing. .
Remember during the cold war when Reagan supposedly personally mapped out and directed a campaign to bankrupt the Soviet Union and wage an economic and political war against Moscow? #msg-1799067
Considering our deficit, enormous defense budget, the quagmire in Iraq plus the manipulation of the price of oil what are the chances that is being done to us right now? Bush being of little brain is not going to catch on. He will go for the weapons. This will come at the expense of our social security and health care. If the Republicans win, they lose.
Updated March 19, 2003 Selected Countries Military Budget ($Billions) United States 399.1 Russia* 65.0 China* 47.0 Japan 42.6 United Kingdom 38.4 France 29.5 Germany 24.9 Saudi Arabia 21.3 Italy 19.4
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
