The trouble with your arguments about the bad things that terrorists may do if we invade Iraq, is that they may also do them if we do not invade Iraq, and they will have one very bad actor still on the scene ready and able to assist them.
Once the US commits itself to an attack, there is nothing whatsoever to prevent Saddam from turning over biological and chemical weapon stocks to terrorists. We have to assume that he will do so.
According to Shin Bet, he has already done so. Just means that we must pursue both the giver and the receiver.
If the US does successfully invade Iraq, all the terrorists have to do to negate the impact of the event is stage one more significant attack in the US, which would serve as a declaration to us and, more important, to the Arab world, that while Saddam may be gone, Islamic terrorism is alive and well.
Could be. Here it really depends on whether you believe that terrorists are more encouraged by strength or weakness on our part (and trust me on this one, these guys read restraint as weakness). To my mind, the evidence points most definitely to 'weakness', and our timidity in dealing with Saddam was a huge recruiting poster for Al Qaeda et. al. It doesn't mean that the occupation of Iraq won't be beset with the difficulties you outline; but it means that yours is not a convincing argument not to attack because of terrorist repurcussions. Nor does it address the question of how to address the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam. |
