How do you deal with the possibility that Saddam would have obtained fissile material or bomb(s) during '03 or '04 while the policy you describe would have been executed?
that would have been a very unlikely possibility, because no one (including Saddam) has ever actually managed to get fissile material that way, even though many have tried over many decades. So I'd essentially have simply kept an eye out for evidence that such a long-shot event was happening or had happened, and if such evidence ever emerged, I'd just shift plans into a higher gear. Not a problem, because if one actually had such evidence, then it would have been much easier to get others on board. You'd have had, as it were, a real crisis, giving you just the casus belli you were looking for.
How would Bush have avoided the Demos tail/dog charges in the heat of an upcoming election?
he'd ignore them, just as he did during the 02 election.
Would anyone in the Mideast be listening to his roadmap absent the war?
no, but as you point out, it doesn't seem to be getting very far now. Some routine diplomatic engagement on the Arab-Israeli stuff--more than the administration did during the first couple of years, less than the roadmap--would probably have been enough to keep the whining down to an acceptable level.
And the wackos in Iran are paying attention to us now, not a bad thing. Everyone is paying a lot more attention to us now.
Not clear, nor is it clear what lesson they've drawn.
At some point, the notion will creep into the various actors' thick skulls that we wish for a stable ME and that stability is in their best interest.
HUH? We want stability? we're the ones currently promoting radical change throughout the region, democratic revolutions, toppling of regimes through direct intervention, etc. etc. If you mean we want a nice peaceful democratic region in the end--the Middle East as northern Europe--sure, that's a vision of a "stable" outcome, but it's so far from here to there that we seem to be the advocates of destabilization instead...
The sad fact is that we needed to re-establish our credibility after Clinton. Afghanistan was like punishing nursery school kids--it was probably perceived as such in the ME. Taking out Saddam made them listen. It has created momentum that Bush needs to exploit or lose. Waiting would have been disastrous.
That's the line of the day, but I just don't buy it. Radical Islamist terrorism, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran's quest for nukes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and politicosocioeconomic staganation in the Arab world are all separate issues. There's less linkage among them than one might think, I believe, and we have less influence than is often argued. The notion that these (countries and issues) are all a bunch of dominoes that were/are about to fall one way or another depending on what we do strikes me as unrealistic. (I know some smart and knowledgeable people who disagree with me on this one, and I can respect their positions, but I'll hold my ground on this one.)
tb@Raid.com |
