Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (5596)	11/25/2002 11:11:06 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

Jack Kelly URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/1102/jkelly.html Why war with Iraq can be averted newsandopinion.com \| Iraqi and Libyan spokesmen have denied a report in the London Times that Saddam Hussein has offered to pay Libyan dictator Muammar Khadafy $3.5 billion to provide a safe haven for himself, his family, and a few top officials. The Times said unnamed diplomats in Tripoli told them the offer to Khadafy had been made by General Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam. Al-Majid is known as "Chemical Ali" by Iraqi Kurds because it was he who was in charge of Iraqi forces which used nerve gas against the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988. Western intelligence services expect Saddam to fight to the bitter end if war comes, and that's still the way to bet. But the Times story is one reason why I think war with Iraq can be averted - though not for the reason many liberals hope for, and many conservatives fear. One of the least publicized triumphs of American foreign policy occurred on the night of Feb. 25, 1986, when, in the black of night, two U.S. Air Force helicopters landed on a golf course adjacent to Malacanang Palace and spirited away Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and as many of her shoes as they could carry. Filipinos got rid of a corrupt dictator without a bloody civil war. Ever since then I've thought it would be good if there were a small country in a pleasant place - Costa Rica, perhaps, or maybe Fiji - to which dictators could repair with some portion of their ill-gotten gains when their time is running out. Hell, for $3.5 billion, we could offer him sanctuary in Berkeley or Ann Arbor. He'd likely get along with his neighbors. The happiest outcome would be for Saddam to choose voluntary exile. But there are two other possibilities which also would be satisfactory: Saddam might actually comply with the UN resolution. Everyone expects him to cheat, dissemble, delay. But though the odds against compliance are steep, this possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Genuine disarmament unquestionably would be a bad choice for Saddam. It would deprive his regime of a raison d'etre, and could signal that his days are numbered. But it is one thing to have one's days numbered, and another to have them ended. Bad doesn't seem so bad when the only alternative is worse. An arrangement which left Saddam in power would be a tragedy for the longsuffering Iraqi people. But if we could be reasonably confident that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed, an arrangement that left him in power could be more acceptable than the risks and expense of a war to remove him, and an occupation afterwards, would entail. Then there is the nine millimeter solution. The one thing Saddam Hussein has done very well is to protect himself and his regime from internal threats. A year ago, I'd have put the odds on a successful coup at about one tenth of one percent. But the calculus is changing rapidly, as Iraqi generals weigh the risks of what Saddam could do to them versus the risks of what the United States could do to them, and the benefits of sticking with Saddam's regime versus the benefits of being on America's good side. There is one other way in which war might be averted. It is the way preferred by the French, the Russians, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and many American liberals, and it would have tragic consequences for the United States. This is that Saddam will again successfully play the game of rope a dope with weapons inspectors that he has played for lo these many years, with the compliance of UN weenies who would just as soon see no evil. War would be delayed past the season for campaigning. The international coalition against Iraq would fizzle. Support for military action against Iraq in America would decline. A number of conservative commentators have warned of this possibility, and it can't be ruled out. But I think the odds on it happening are infinitesimally small. Pundits Left and Right continue to underestimate the will and the wisdom of George W. Bush. Among those who have done so in the past, to their sorrow, are former Texas governor Ann Richards, former Vice President Al Gore, former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Those who think Bush will cede control over Iraq policy to Hans Blix or Kofi Annan are destined for yet another surprise.