Despite all that is said about Saddam, regime change in Iraq will not be a fatal or even seriously damaging blow to al Qaeda.
This statement assumes that the purpose of regime change in Iraq is to damage Al Qaeda. That's not what Bush says, and that's not what proponents like Ken Pollack say. The purpose is to keep Saddam Hussein from getting nukes and imposing hegemony over the Gulf (and doing who knows what else with them too). Just because Saddam and Al Qaeda are both enemies, it doesn't mean they are the same enemy. Just because Saddam didn't manage to destroy the WTC, it doesn't mean that he is not really a dangerous enemy. The arguments for going into Iraq are not based on the idea that we will strike a blow against Al Qaeda; nor should the arguments against going into Iraq be based on this idea.
The shortest term goal is to track down and eliminate terrorists, all over, by all possible means. The medium term goal is to reduce the heat level around the Middle East: chill the war talk, keep a low military profile, lots of negotiations and conferring, big show of multilateralism and concern for the process by which things are done
This analysis omits some major players - the radical Arab states, who support terrorism as a deniable tool of statecraft, whip up support for it (aimed externally of course), and need the US as an enemy to distract their populations from their own failures. Is it your position that this dynamic does not exist? Because if it does, walking softly in the Mideast won't help. Not only will it be viewed as weakness, but the conflict will be stirred up elsewhere, certainly in Israel, forcing us to support Israel and making it impossible for us to look 'balanced' in Arab eyes (since to them we are unbalanced for supporting Israel no matter if the Israelis are truly getting blown up by the hundreds at the time).
You say that we should deprive terrorists and radical governments of public support. I agree, but how? The radical Arab governments don't need public support, they have oil and guns, which suffice instead. And the "moderate" regimes are scarcely better. If they are less threat in themselves, the greatest public support for terrorists comes from those regimes where we have worked with the regime in place. The people all blame us for their corrupt governments. Even when we have been hands-off, they perceive us as all-powerful.
It is hard to win when you are perceived as Superman; everything bad then becomes your wish and your fault. A lot of people whose instincts are normally conservative have concluded that the US has nothing to gain by conserving the situtation, so we are going in to do slum clearance on the worst radical regime, and see if we can put at least one good model of action on the ground. It is risky, but every other option is worse. |
