The issue I failed to see him address in that article is that of American public opinion. I don't see it ready for an invasion of Iraq with the attendant casualties, the lack of clear linkages to 9-11, and the difficult task of doing so without some sort of coalition.
Funny, if the chattering classes are any indication, both left and right seem to believe the Iraq invasion is coming, without much fuss about it. I think the general feeling is that we should have finished the job the first time. Have you seen anything that says different?
I followed up reading Pollack's article with Frontline's Gunning for Saddam. It just adds to the case that Saddam is desperate to get nukes, and won't sit on them if he has them. But since the US has a track record as a very unreliable partner in the region, we will have to show we absolutely mean business this time and will finish what we start, which means public commitment and ground troops.
Cheney just got back from the Mideast, and according to the NY Times, he says that the neighbors will back us if we mean business. BTW, Cheney was the guy Bush 41 sent to the region before the Gulf War.
Thus, if you follow Pollack's logic to its end, I think you wind up unable to do anything.
Then Saddam Hussein will get nukes, & take over the region, or we will confront a nuclear exchange with him. I don't think our policymakers find these options acceptable. |
