The difference between that editorial's position and mine is not in the logic, it's in the premise. And here's the nub of it:
Iraq, however, is widely perceived as a war of "choice." Yes, Saddam is dangerous, but he poses no immediate threat to us and has proved to be deterrable. Removing him is a legitimate choice, but it is still perceived as precisely that: a choice
Saddam by all appearances is attempting to amass chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. There is ample intelligence that has been reported upon that he has been trying to acquire nuclear materials. Getting the materials is really the hard part; it's not hard to deliver them in a nasty way. All of this he has done in contravention of an agreement he signed after his last aggression (not his first).
So the real issue to me is whether we do have a choice but to depose him. The alternative, in my view, is to live under his threat until he dies, or lots of us do.
I don't think that risk should be taken, and therefore I do not view it as a matter of choice. As for what should happen in Iraq Day 3, the author makes some good points and I agree with some of them. But I for one would be happy to even get to Day 3. |
