Good points, Michael. I was aware of that and tried to put some mild calendar and significance disclaimers in (I had in mind from Reagan forward and should have said so), but I'll take them down. You're right. I certainly would include the Bay of Pigs, would not include the Cuban Missile Crisis (that was clearly foisted upon us), would include Vietnam all the way thru Nixon. Good list.
Now to your question. I gather you are asking what could be done if Iraq had nuclear weapons, did some dastardly deed, and threatened to use them if the US tried to stop them. Is that it?
I genuinely don't know. If learning foreign policy nuances is a ten level project, with ten the tops, I think I'm about at the second, perhaps third level. Best ask tek who is at level eleven.
But ignorance has yet to stop any of us on this board from typing yet another post. So, I'll go. Short though.
Right now Mearshimer (most likely mispelled) makes the most sense to me simply because he's the one proposing deterrence most recently. Everyone's view of what to do relies on some view of Saddam's personality. M's makes the most sense to me right now. Ruthless, cruel, vicious, you name it, but containable.
Now, the opposite question arises. Assume the Bushies take the US into Iraq, populations in the Arab states explode in anger, some states go down (perhaps Jordan, perhaps others), US troops occupying Iraq are sitting ducks for attacks of all sorts, and the recruitment base of Al Qaeda multiples exponentially.
There are risks both ways. That's why foreign policy strikes me as four dimensional chess. |
