My hunch is that we're on track for an invasion in early '03. Congress won't be a problem; the question of the wording and the timing of the resolution are more about domestic politics than about what will actually happen. As for the UN, if the US keeps up the pressure and combines some tact and diplomacy with relentless determination, it should be able to get pretty much what it wants--a tough resolution that sets out conditions Saddam is unlikely to meet and that sets up the invasion as a response. All this is a testimony to an administration that is running the world's extraordinarily dominant power and is dead set on getting its own way on an issue it is obsessed with.
The various domestic and international negotiations are worth following with one eye, I suppose, but I'd suggest training the other on the movement of troops to the region, which will provide clues as to when and what kind of operation is in the offing.
as for my opinion on all of this, I'm still on the fence, torn between being appalled at the administration's cavalier and reckless hubris together with its constantly shifting and often unconvincing rationales, and the kind of solid sober argumentation that Pollack presents in his book. I suppose if I were confident that it would be done Pollack's way, I'd be in favor. Still, there are lots of good arguments on the other side--laid out nicely in an ad that ran on the NYT op-ed page next to the Pollack article, signed by a couple of dozen of the country's best security studies experts, and in Michael Walzer's recent piece in the New Republic.
I suppose what pisses me off most about the whole debate is the name-calling stuff and the partisan politicization of it. These are deeply serious questions of the utmost importance, and neither the pro- nor anti-invasion case is a slam-dunk. It all comes down (as these things so often do) to tough judgment calls about the relative risks and costs of various unpleasant options.
tb@thumbsucker.com |
