Actually John, I have to say that I'm finding myself underwhelmed by the case the Bush administration is making vis-a-vis Iraq.
They certainly need to be either more specific, or more far-reaching (specifying Iraq as only the first of the despotic regimes in the region to be targeted)..
The underlying politics of all of this are fascinating to watch. Is it Bush Jr. pushing this agenda and Cheney having to fumble for specific words to defend the administration's position? I don't see that as likely. Cheney plays a significant role in formulating this administration's policy (unless something has changed over the past year)
Or is it Rumsfield and some of the more hawkish elements pushing Bush in this direction and dragging Cheney and Powell along?? (when was the last time we saw Colin Powell spewing soundbites on the news?)
But what really interests me the most is James Baker stepping forward and expressing his opinions. Baker is the heavy hitter (as we know from his representation of Bush Jr. during the election legalities and Reagan-Bush days). He's a no-BS kind of guy and certainly no wimp.
So when he steps in and advocates that we have to send inspectors back into Iraq, backed by the threat of force, then unlikely that any invasion of Iraq will occur in the near term. Of all the people out there I would not want to ignore on Foreign Policy, I think James Baker is near the top of the list.
cnn.com
It certainly is unless this administration is unwilling to reveal the intelligence it has implicating Saddam and his intelligence agencies in supporting terrorism.
The recent belated announcement by Qatar that they would not permit US strikes against Iraq to occur from their territory is the latest blow to the Bush administration.
So now it's a matter of "put up or shut up" with making their case, or taking the "low-road" with a renewed inspection program.
I think we're still going to wind up pressing for regime change in Iraq, but we're going to be required to jump through a few more hoops before that event occurs.
But again, if Bush/Cheney have not compiled a more compelling and specific argument to make than the vague generalities he used in that speech yesterday, they are in for some serious backtracking.
Of course, I have a different perspective since I look at demographic trends and am pressing for regime/system changes in not just Iraq, but SA, Iran, and a few other Muslim nations. But of course, my perspective isn't sufficiently "PC" to be public policy.
But one side of this is that we are forcing a bunch of nations to fall in line with renewed inspections in Iraq, and invasive ones at that. And the only way this can occur is if the US threatens to act militarily, and to hell with our "Arab allies".
Because let's face it.. The Arab governments in the region despise Saddam and want to see him gone. But it's the pressure from their subjugated populations, the so called Arab street, that worries them. Thus, they have to publicly opposed any US action against Iraq, lest they face being overthrown themselves.
So they will be more willing to take any action, outside of direct military attack, that prevents Saddam from obtaining WMDs.
Hawk |
