I am used to having answers. Whether I'm right or not, I am usually able to weigh available data with my mind, balance that conclusion with my instincts and reach a semblance of a conclusion that I can argue in favor of. The question of starting a war with Iraq has me in quandary. Utterly. I simply don't have enough data . . . so for the last few days I've retreated into metaphor, and it's helped, just a little.
Saddam is a cancer. This is a perception held by doves and hawks alike. (In my family, we've had to deal with life threatening cancers on a number of occasions, so using this metaphor puts me on fairly familiar ground.)
When faced with a cancer, one has a number of options; primarily:
1. Do nothing, pray that it doesn't metastasize, and accept that one is living with a deadly condition which could kill you.
2.Surgery and/or Chemo. Both have attendant risks which must be weighed, but, on balance they offer the greatest hope for healing.
My family has always taken option 2. Though we did so with trepidation, we did something rather than remain captives to our fear.
IMO, playing the cat and mouse game of UN inspections is (maybe) a rung above doing nothing. I'd put it in the same category as homeopathic remedies--they're OK when you've got the sniffles, but when it comes to life threatening conditions, I wouldn't bet my life, or a loved one's life on them.
Sadly, I've reached the conclusion that the military option may be our best option for dealing with Saddam. |
