Iraq, after the demise of the Soviet Union, appears to be emerging as the chief REVISIONIST power, bent on upending the international system.
Cite evidence.
Iraq was pounded into bits during Gulf War I, which ended on February 28th, 1991. The Soviet Union did not cease to exist until December of that year.
By the time the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Saddam had been defeated, his armies destroyed, most of his country's infrastructure crippled or destroyed outright.
Saddam ordered his nuclear weapons systems research programs halted and dismantled, and chemical weapons production was terminated and all stockpiles destroyed. By the mid 1990's, all remaining biowarfare production facilities and materials were dismantled and / or destroyed. (Reference: CIA Report on Iraq's WMD programs)
*None of these programs were ever reconstituted.*
In short: Saddam may have wanted to do all sorts of things on a grand scale - who knows what delusions he harbored then - but he was like a 90 pound weakling dreaming of Mr. Atlas' (Arnold's?) muscles. All desire, no ability.
Saddam subscribes to the view that the Arab people are a kind of master race, and should play a dominant role in the world.
Saddam may have had all sorts of fantasies, but you were not privy to them in 2003, and more to the point, his ability to implement any grand vision was checked by the near total destruction of Iraq's infrastructure in Gulf War I, by Operations Northern and Southern Watch (no-fly zones) and stepped up rules of engagement in recent years, and by UNSCOM / UNMOVIC inspection and monitoring programs.
Basically Iraq had been almost bombed to the stone age, had no functional air force, had US, UK and French (for a time) aircraft patrolling its skies and opportunistically blowing up identified targets, and had the UN in his own country breathing down his neck.
Although his version is secular, it obviously speaks to the sentiments of Islamofascists, who think the international system should be dominated by shari'ah states.
The "islamofascists" loathed Saddam and the Baathists, and, depending on which side of Islam they were from, loathe the Sunni or Shia. Having taken out the Baathists and Iraqi Secret Police, we've given them fertile ground to fight each other for control of Iraq. The recent blowing up of dozens of Muslim children (apparently Shia children) taking candy tells you that this process is well underweigh.
It appears to be the case that certain rogue regimes, like North Korea and Iraq, have been cooperating on a number of enterprises, and that Saddam has ties to many terrorist groups. Iraq appears to be the focal point of REVISIONIST aspirations.
Yes, we should highlight that Iraq attempted to strike a relationship with North Korea to improve Iraq's missile systems. Not much was gained from the North Koreans, instead, Russia, Poland, perhaps Belarus, Ukraine and other former Soviet states and Warsaw pact countries provided the bulk of expertise and materials. A Japanese company provided materials. there is only one issue with respect to North Korea in the latest CIA report "Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and RUSSIAN entities for more capable missile systems". For some reason, the same comment is repeated a number of times within the report, verbate at times.
However, nothing was ever finalized with the North Koreans although Iraq paid approx 1 million US on a 9 million dollar contract to buy components to modernize its missile systems. While the investgators found delivery of some components and test equipment, they found no evidence of delivery of most items discussed nor any substantive missile systems.
Report Conclusion: "There is no evidence, however, that the missiles were ever purchased."
Instead of North Korea being the arch-supplier of advanced missile technology, Russian experts were hired and technology purchased from former Soviet republics and Warsaw pact countries including Poland which supplied liquid propellant engines. The same Poland which is nominal "coalition partner".
Not only is there danger of an accelerated nuclear arms program
CIA report is quite clear that the nuclear arms program was in steady decline and essentially quite quickly and completely dead post Gulf War I.
along with biochemical stockpiling
The CIA report states plainly that biowarfare capability ceased to exist in the mid 1990's and must of the presumed capability "could not be confirmed".
The CIA report states plainly that chemical warfare capability was destroyed in 1991.
No stockpiles were ever found.
but Saddam could easily walk over the regimes in the Arabian peninsula
Fanciful thinking on your part. His armies defanged, his airforce non-existant, air superiority denied in his own airspace, Saddam could not take control of his own country (Northern Iraq was most certainly not under his control post 1991) let alone mount an assault on any other.
and gain effective control over the oil economy, to either amass wealth to fund his ventures, or use to wreak Western economies.
Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel. However the toothless Saddam isn't the one to fear in this regard, its the terrorists we don't know about, operating in countries other than Iraq, which pose the greatest threat in this regard. While our backs are turned...
Suppose that there were a concerted series of biochemical attacks on our troops in the region? How long before there was a call to withdraw them, leaving Saddam with a free hand?
Supposition on your part. An equally storng argument can be made that in a post-9/11 world, such an attack would only strengthen US - forgive me, "coalition partner" resolve.
Regardless, with air superiority denied from Saddam, we can judge this scenario as less than likely - implausible in my view. Other than prudent planning and operational alerts from time to time, clearly the US military did not fear Saddam's bio/chemical warfare capability. Shock and awe and quick completion were clearly the expected outcome from the get go.
This, of course, touches on the possibility of containment. When a principal part of the "coalition" against the United States is terrorist organizations, with the possibility of irregular, dirty warfare involving WMDs, delivered by supposed freelance groups, without clear assignment of responsibility or ability to make a clearcut retaliation, there is no effective deterrence.
Containment does not equal deterrence.
Containment was and is not a passive exercise, unlike deterrence. Containment means vigillance, monitoring, detection, destruction and continued "in-your-face" action.
A containment plan in the post-9/11 world could get and benefit from extra teeth not availble in a pre-9/11 world, if only the Bush administration wanted to go that route.
Without effective deterrence, there are only two alternatives: at some point, we go in with guns blazing, or we keep taking it on the chin until blood gushes and we throw in the towel.
Finally, the crux of the matter. You are absolutely right, we can not deter individuals bent on our destruction. A nation-state can be held to account for monsterous action by the threat of monsterous reaction. Welcome to Mutually Assured Destruction.
But individuals and state-less terror cells and organizations are a completely different matter.
Invading Iraq did not make us safer from individuals and state-less terror cells and organizations.
Containment is not really an option.
Your conjecture, proven false by revelation after revelation, by the CIA no less.
Invading Iraq did not make us safer from Saddam, he was well contained and with simple resolve would have remained that way until the end of his days. |
