<<...The Need for Vigilant Containment
It is not surprising that those who favor a war with
Iraq have sought to portray Saddam as an inveterate
and only partly rational aggressor. They are in the
business of selling a preventive war, and that means
that they have to try to make remaining at peace seem
unacceptably dangerous. And the best way to do that
is to inflate the threat, either by exaggerating
Iraq's capabilities or by suggesting that horrible
things will happen if we do not act soon. It is
equally unsurprising that advocates of war have been
willing to distort the historical record in order to
make their case. As Secretary of State Dean Acheson
famously remarked, in politics, advocacy "must be
clearer than the truth."
In this case, however, the truth points the other
way. Both logic and historical evidence suggest that
a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now
and in the event that Iraq acquired a nuclear arsenal.
Why? Because the United States and its regional
allies are far stronger than Iraq, and because it does
not take a genius to figure out what would happen if
Iraq tried to use its arsenal to blackmail its
neighbors, to expand its territory, or to attack
another state directly. It only takes a leader who
wants to remain alive, and who wants to remain in
power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career,
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two
goals are absolutely paramount. That is why
deterrence and containment would work, and that is why
preventive war is unnecessary...>>
tekboy: Great find...John J. Mearsheimer writes some excellent articles / editorials that show up in the Chicago newspapers...I really can connect with his view on why 'vigilant containment' can work...Here is a link to a deep discussion with Mearsheimer -- it helps one understand his background and his perspective on foreign policy...
globetrotter.berkeley.edu |
