I do consider Saddam dangerous, a tyrant, you name it, but the Bush folk have not convinced me nor a great many other citizens of the globe that he constitutes an imminent threat.
That's precisely the problem. He's not an imminent threat, but he's a substantial future threat who could easily be non-deterrable should he become armed with nukes.
I thought you had read Pollack and his painstaking analysis of Saddam's history, his intentions, his failure to assess risks properly, etc., etc., ad nauseum, all of which drove Pollack to change his previously-held belief that containment was the best strategy.
The combination of the failure of containment because sanctions and inspections have not worked with Saddam's irrationality and ambition make for an explosive tinderbox. If he gets nukes, the game is over and he will control the flow of oil from the ME to the West and dispose of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and a few other places.
Why not disarm him before he gets nukes?
My mind is open. If you have better arguments than "I think containment is best," I'd like to hear them, but please, please, make them factual.
Containment is a bad joke, a complete failure. It's two prongs, sanctions and inspections, have not worked in the past few years. Saddam has sold billions of dollars worth of oil in violation of the sanctions regime which he has used to finance his palaces and WMD programs, most of which couldn't be found by inspectors unless they were given free rein for at least 3-5 years. What do you think the chances of Saddam giving inspectors free rein are? Zero, in my view. |
