Permit me to suggest, that you addressed a point I wasn't making.
For the sake of argument, lets assume that the action ultimately brings better security to the U.S., by bringing more moderate regimes to the middle east. (That's the only argument that can be made, simply because you can fight terrorists with guns and armies but you can't fight terrorism with those tools. Terrorism is a sociological problem.)
It still doesn't change the fact that nation states will react. As I stated, I don't think 'we will go it alone.' We'll have coalition partners. Whether they truly agree or pay lip service it doesn't matter. U.S. policy will have changed so nation states will react to that change.
We're having this discussion because Iraq has no allies and no "confirmed" weapons of mass destruction. If it had either, our response would be similar to our response to North Korea.
After this action, nation states will find allies, especially ones with nukes. And they'll give up much to cement those alliances. And they'll simultaneously drive to develop their own nukes. The non-proliferation genie, which had a admittedly weak stopper on its bottle, will be shattered.
IMO, Europe will re-arm. (Europe won't be monolithic either, perhaps creating the conditions for the failure of NATO). By doing so, Russia will be handed the argument to stifle internal dissent to disarming. China will react to that. Any influence we have with India and Pakistan (regarding WMDs) will disappear. And so on.
It's not that its a high risk strategy. It's action - reaction.
ww |
