When a country is very large, and very powerful, you'd better have a very good reason to attack it, otherwise, it's safer to just rely on the balance of power.
Yes, indeed....
And we've been attacked. Attacked by shadowy groups armed, financed, and politically/logistically supported by a few rogue regimes and powerful individuals.
And the only way to destroy the enemy is to root him out, deny him access to safe havens, and punish or remove those who provide them sancutary.
Saddam is providing sanctuary to some Kurdish extremists, associated with Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam. These terrorists were training with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and fought against US troops in Operation Anaconda.
One would think that would be sufficient rational for targeting Saddam as a supporter of terrorism.
The problem with the Bush administration's approach here is that they are still fumbling for the clear-cut foundation upon which to present their arguments to allies.
K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, silly)... "Al-Qaeda, and anyone associated with them, are our enemies. We will engage them where ever they may be hiding and punish those nations which have granted them safe haven and physical and political support."
This must be the principle, even if these groups have not YET directly attacked the US. They are STILL part of the Al-Qaeda network. They are all subsidiaries of the parent "terrorist corporation" Bin Laden led(leads?).
If we're only willing to go after those groups who have specifically attacked us, we stand little chance of gaining the upper hand in this terrorist war. And the more we show hesitation as a nation, the more emboldened our foes will become.
An ounce of prevention, in the form of determination and resolve, will prevent a pound of cure later on, should we dilute the international mandate we received on 9/11.
Just my opinion.
Hawk |
