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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (407377)	5/19/2003 4:36:46 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Anyone who thinks we will ever totally eradicate terrorism is just naive and maybe even stupid. Traits that you and other extreme lefty loonies frequently display.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (407377)	5/19/2003 4:40:54 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Finding WMD Would Be Even More Damaging to Bush Charles L. Glaser, LA Times Published on Thursday, May 15, 2003 CHICAGO, 15 May 2003 ? Critics of the war in Iraq are now questioning whether the Bush administration intentionally distorted the threat of weapons of mass destruction. They maintain that the failure to find WMD undermines President Bush?s rationale for toppling Saddam Hussein. In fact, finding WMD would be even more damaging to the administration?s case for the war. Nuclear weapons were the greatest potential danger, but information available before the war strongly suggested that Iraq lacked an advanced program. If it turns out that Iraq also did not have substantial chemical and biological weapons programs, very serious questions about the quality of American intelligence capabilities would arise and the United States? international reputation would be seriously damaged. Another question, however, is at least as important and has been largely overlooked. If Saddam had WMD, as the Bush administration remains confident was the case, why did Iraq not use these weapons? An obvious answer is that Saddam was deterred from using them. If so, then the case for invading Iraq essentially falls apart. Some critics of the administration did not question whether Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons. But if Saddam could be deterred, as many opponents of the war believed, then the war was unnecessary. A dedicated policy designed to deter attacks on Iraq?s neighbors would have sufficed to protect the region. A combination of US conventional forces deployed in the region, backed up by the full array of American forces deployed at home and around the globe and by clear commitments to oppose Iraqi aggression, would have worked. If Saddam was deterred from escalating to the use of WMD when the United States was invading his country, then he could have been deterred with still higher confidence in virtually any other scenario. Invasion eliminated most of the incentives for Iraq not to escalate because the United States already was imposing extremely high costs. Saddam had little left to lose, so why not use weapons of mass destruction in the hope that it would weaken American military capabilities, or be so startling that it would undermine US resolve? Even if likely to fail, why not give it a try? One possibility is that Saddam was sensitive to the greater damage that might be inflicted on his country. If so, he could be deterred according to standard deterrence logic. If this was not the reason, then Saddam?s nonuse of his WMD is more of a puzzle. Given that the United States was trying to kill him and was clearly going to overthrow him, maybe deterrence is not the reason that he did not escalate. Saddam almost certainly could have used his WMD if he wanted to ? Iraq had months to prepare for the coming US invasion, and there have been no reports that American forces destroyed any. One possibility is that Iraq hid its WMD from UN weapons inspectors and was unable to redeploy them between the time that the inspectors left and the time the war began. This, however, seems unlikely because it took US ground forces more than 10 days to get within range of Baghdad. Another possibility is that Saddam saw no value in using his WMD because he did not believe they were militarily useful or because he was not bent on inflicting large-scale revenge. In these cases, he did not need to be deterred and therefore his WMD did not pose a great danger. Of course, no one could be certain before the war that Saddam would not use his WMD (assuming he had them). Nevertheless, it is important that we not overlook this perspective. The central argument against the war was that Saddam could be deterred. Either that argument now gains weight or serious doubts about Saddam?s interest in using WMD must be addressed. Maybe more important, Saddam?s nonuse of WMD suggests that we need to take a closer look at the general claim that so-called rogue states cannot be deterred. Maybe some states cannot be, but it now appears that the United States needs to do a better job of analyzing this thorny question. arabnews.com