The odds of North Korea targetting America, with it's one dubious missile, is low. North Korea would be blown into kingdom come, and they know it.
Well, quite. that's the whole point of deterrence.
Why is this not likely to apply to Saddam, who doesn't even have that "one, dubious missile", who's got an army in tatters, is bombed out of half his country, and has - as far as we can tell, a few dubious rumours notwithstanding - no functional nukes or other WMD's?
If deterrence works against the incredibly militarised and militaristic North Korea, as it worked against the Soviets, Mao's China, etc... why won't it contain Saddam?
Do you think Saddam is likely to launch an unprovoked attack on the US or the West?
- more so than N Korea? Or is he more able to do so?
Why is Saddam such a threat to the west, suddenly - what is it he can do which means he MUST be removed, now?
We've tolerated him and other dictators - supplied them, armed them, supported them, even.
There are better armed and thus more dangerous countries.
Why Saddam, now?
Saddam is constrained, and although his regime is doubtless vile in the bits of Iraq he still controls, he's not accused (that I've heard of) of any active policies of genocide, of forced expulsion, of mass slaughter and rape. But there are people being massacred, now - e.g., in the Congo, or Ivory Coast - if we're suddenly so concerned. If we're so humanitarian, which is just fine by me, why not rescue Africa - why not storm into the Congo and use war to bring peace there, for starters?
Why Saddam, and why now, and why so urgent? |
