<good comments from blogger e.nough:>
He lists, and knocks down, each individual reason for invading Iraq, and then says: but the sum is greater than the parts, so we should invade anyway. How so?
Then, he goes off on a long paranoid fantasy, about how Saddam is going to conquer the planet if we don't invade now. The fantasy starts with:
<First, Iran will be easily conquered>
Iran has a population far larger than Iraq. And much of Iraq's population (Kurds, Shias) could not be counted on to garrison Iran. So, even assuming an unconditional surrender by Iran, Saddam would have already over-reached, just trying to hold Iran. He would quickly face a popular uprising, where his army and the Iranian guerrillas would be so mixed, nuclear weapons would be unusable.
Building a nuclear weapon, and the means to deliver it, takes a large industrial complex, with a lot of inputs. You can't hide it in Presidential Palaces. You can't hide it in the back of trucks. You can identify it and destroy it from the air. I like Steve Roger's idea of instantly destroying any site where inspections are obstructed in any way. And a real blockade. |
