First, there's no inciting incident: Saddam hasn't invaded Kuwait.
Excuse me?? Almost everyday the Iraqis are shooting at our pilots and trying to bring down American aircraft which continue to enforce the terms of the previous gulf war "no-fly" zone.
That's an act of war, Scott. We're have just been ignoring the provocation.
The reality is that Saddam is actively seeking WMDs. And if he should obtain them, that will make him the dominant political and military power in the region, able to brow-beat and threaten his neighbors with mass destruction.
It will also provide him a shield to hide behind politically, since he would then up the anty to anyone confronting him, to the point of risking nuclear war.
Can anyone really believe that Saddam would adopt only a retaliatory stance such as the one that Israel has adopted?
There is NO QUESTION that everyone believes the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein. But the problem is that we have not provided a compelling enough argument to convince them that the potential risks and domestic turmoil that will occur in Arab states are worth it.
The entire situation is VERY similar to what occurred just prior to World War II, when everyone recognized Hitler was a menace, but they thought they could appease him into moderation.
In the end it required brute force and the loss of millions of lives.
But I certainly am not saying that Saddam, or Iraq, possesses the industrial might or technological know-how of Germany. Nonetheless, with that amount of oil effectively placed under his political control by virtue of his possessing nuclear weapons, and the grass roots support he will enjoy throughout the region should he become the only Arab state possessing them, we may find ourselves placed at a VERY negative economic disadvantage.
Hawk |
