So there should be much less of a need to go beat up on Iraq anymore, right?
This reflects a total misunderstanding of why we are engaging Iraq. I think it is quite intuitive, and frankly, simple:
1) Iraq has millions of pounds of chemical and biological weapons that are unaccounted for, and they are prohibited under international law from possessing such weapons;
2) Iraq has thumbed its nose at the UN resolutions for 12 years, and further failure to respond will effectively bring about the end of the UN;
3) Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism, and as such, clearly poses a direct threat to the United States and its allies.
4) Saddam Hussain routinely murders people, both within and without Iraq. Others are not murdered but are subjected to other atrocities;
5) Most importantly: Saddam is a destablizing factor in the Middle East. Replacing him with some democratic form of government may well bring long-term stability to the region -- once the initial difficulties are resolved. Over a period of years, it is entirely possible that surrounding nations will see the benefits of democracy and be influenced to pursue democracy for themselves. This, in turn, will cut to the core of the terrorism problem, by reducing the level of anti-Americanism amongst Islamic societies.
While we may face increased terrorism threat for a brief time, it is likely the removal of Saddam will be the best thing for our children.
I'm not sure which of these things you quarrel with, but they constitute a substantial case for the removal or assassination of Saddam, in my view. |
