The fact is that Israel was a hinderance to US policy, not an asset. If Israel had flown into Iraq we'd have shot their planes down. Think about it.
I have. The hindrance factor was due solely to the coalition of Arab states we were relying on during the Gulf War. Does it exist today? Tell me, have the Saudis been good allies to us this time around? Were they and their armed forces a big help to us in Afghanistan? Did they even let us use our own bases? Did they do anything, in fact, besides supply most of the terrorists on 9/11? Do you think these facts will be brushed under the rug forever? I don't. I believe the administration is considering its options, and perpetual kowtowing to the House of Saud is not rated high among them.
And before the US does take out Saddam, they will give him a chance to play by the new rules. Hell, the US gave the Taliban multiple opportunities to play by the rules before bombing them.
Rules we knew they wouldn't accept. Similarly, Saddam will be given the chance to abide by all the agreements he signed at the end of the Gulf War.
Also note that a big reason why the US was so successful in Afghanistan was because of the help of allies on the ground, and assistance from neighboring countries.
In Iraq, the situation would be more difficult
Nah, that argument doesn't fly. Even without Saudi Arabia, we have Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, de facto Kurdistan in the northern no fly zone, the southern no fly zone, (probably) Jordan. Russia and Israel are not far off, beside our own fleet parked in the Persian Gulf. Certainly it's a lot easier and more accessible than Afghanistan. The terrain is much easier too. Iraqi battalions surrendered to camera crews the last time around; do you really think they would fight harder for Saddam this time? |
