Right. 2 questions:
1. How is the hypothetical threat from Saddam anywhere near as great as the threat in Pakistan? In Pakistan, nukes aren't a hypothetical. Saddam may present himself as muslim, but historically his movement is purely secular. Fundamentalists are quite strong in Pakistan. Saddam's ties to bin Laden and al Qaeda are highly speculative. With Pakistan's murky ISI, the ties seem much more concrete. You want to look for a place in danger of blowing up, Pakistan looks far more precarious than anyplace else.
2. With Saddam's very limited credentials as an Islamist, who, exactly, on the "Arab Street" is going to line up behind him? The only ones to more or less stick by him in the Kuwait thing was everybody's favorite Hashemite, King Hussein.
What evidence is there that Saddam has any popular following anywhere? Inside Iraq or outside? The neocons mock the whole "Arab Street" thing when it cuts against their dogma, now it's suddenly supposed to be some fierce threat? For propaganda purposes, maybe. Realistically? It's about as plausible as comparing Saddam, who's fought 2 major wars that ended in rather ignominious defeat for him in the last 20 years, with Hitler, Stalin, and Ghenghis Khan. Who, I understand, all had some notable successes on the battlefield. I guess precision in analogies doesn't much count when there's propaganda to be pumped, though. |
