INTRODUCTORY QUESTION:
As of this writing, January 2, 2003, I'm not aware of any direct proof Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush Administration seems poised to conduct war on Iraq, with or without proof.
If no weapons of mass destruction are found by the United Nations inspection team, led by Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, what will or should America do?
Will Bush decide on war anyway?
If the Bush Administration plays the war card, is there any way to stop America's generals from marching innocent young Americans into the sands of time of a windy war? How would history view this war?
Could the war in Iraq be prevented if the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaredi, because the inspection team cannot find any weapons of mass destruction, decide themselves to become human shields and, thus, remain in Iraq, defiance of Bush and a concern for innocent civilians who'd die? What if the pope went to Baghdad and stayed, in a call for no bombs?
Indeed, such action would force Bush to think hard how future historians would pen his history. Introspectively, he'd have to deeply consider his own war.
An important thought.
Consider what it'll become like for a US-led invasion in a capture of Baghdad. If Saddam's military forces retreat into the inner city to defend it, extremely intensive urban combat could hapen that would make the Battle of Morgadishu (see film Blackhawk Down) seem like paintball in comparison.
And ask yourself: When is the last time an invading army attempted to capture a city of 5.5 million inhabitants protected by an army of 300,000? And a very painful thought is the notion that many of those who will die will, themselves, be the victims of Saddam Hussein. |
