Do you propose to have us walk off and leave Saddam in power? That is what all the alternatives boil down to, when you strip away the verbiage. And no, I don't think any solution that does that is viable.
Alternative strategies:
1. Specific timetables for specific disarmament items. By such and such a date, Saddam will have destroyed so many such and suchs. That makes disarmament the goal, gives specific items and timetables such that there can be no disagreement about performance. Schedules are worked out with the inspectors. If Saddam meets those requirements, he stays in power; if not, war follows. With UNSC support.
2. If one got serious thinking along these lines, there are no doubt any number of alternative ways to think about clear disarmament goals without "regime change."
3. Since Saddam is not an imminent threat and since there is no evidence of formal and serious ties to Al Q, just leave him there with serious minding capabilities. Admittedly, this is unlikely because Bush must admit failure for it, since it pulls back the 200,000 odd troops. Arguments here go back to Mearsheimer and Walt and others. I consider that a viable alternative. Clearly, you do not.
As for whether Bush is a serious believer, I don't see any evidence to the contrary. It's the content of his beliefs that's worrisome. Not as an individual but as a president of the US.
I'm reading Dana Priest's book, The Mission, about the reconfiguration of the military's role in the past twenty years. It was recommended by Thomas Powers in that NYReview of Books article. Not bad. |
