Saddam's threat is a two-bladed one. He can supply terrorists with WMDs, harbor them in Iraq, and train them.
And if Saddam is gone, the terrorists can get weapons, training, and shelter elsewhere. They don’t need him. They will probably gain more from our action than they will lose, especially if we play into their hands by moving unilaterally.
The knee-jerk response, of course, is that the terrorists have exploited the US reluctance to strike in the past by claiming it as weakness and lack of resolve. I’m not saying we shouldn’t strike, or that we should eschew direct action. I’m saying that the direct action we need has to be aimed directly at the terrorists, and it has to used tactics appropriate to its target. The key people in Al Qaeda aren’t hanging around in Iraq. They’re much safer in Paris or Luxembourg, and they know it.
A mere reasonable possibility is more than enough on which to act.
If we take that approach, we’re going to be invading an awful lot of people. There’s a reasonable possibility that a major terrorist attack on the US is being planned right now in Europe. It’s more likely to be plotted in Europe, in fact, than in Baghdad. The money is more likely to come from Riyadh than Baghdad. Who do we invade? |
