<<The most serious argument for me were, that (a) the belief that Al Qaeda is separate or separable from the general Middle East political swamp, esp. in our so-called friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia, was a severe misunderstanding>>
The severe misunderstanding is yours, and it is ongoing. To merely hand-wave that there is a "general Middle East political swamp", ergo our servicemen and resources should be dumped into an occupation of Iraq is not an argument, it is the absence of an argument, and a non sequitur. al Qaeda was and is demonstrably supported by Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, but was not demonstrably supported by Baathist Iraq. There is certainly a general African "political swamp", and Nigeria's buying scary SCUDs from North Korea; so when does the Coalition occupation of Burkina Faso begin?
<<The most likely outcome of doing nothing was an imminent American climb-down and a triumphant Saddam free of sanctions to pursue whatever programs he chose>> "Most likely!!!?" Pray tell why anyone other than Nadine should assume that in early 2003 we were choosing between a) occupation, or b) an "imminent" (or do you mean "gathering!") American standdown? HUH? Dubya would do this?
There certainly were other Iraq strategies in Bush and Powell's playbook, and as we all know they didn't choose them. But it is astonishing to hear from you that "an imminent American standdown" (which would be during the _Bush administration_!) was the "most likely" alternative to the occupation.
Not seeing any sequitur there, either.
John |
