Steve,
Quote:I don't deny the logic that leads to war - Saddam is in breach, therefore kill him. But NOT WAR is never in contradiction of logic, in my opinion. The alternative positions revolve around allowing more time for Blix to complete his work. Now what is wrong with that? Does anyone seriously think that if we don't go to war with Iraq in the next few days, Saddam will destroy us?
1. "Allow more time for the UN Inspection teams to complete their work (disarm Saddam)". You ask what's wrong with that. There isn't anything wrong with that if at the end of the process Saddam Hussein was disarmed, and no longer a threat to regional peace and world security. Is that possible, or improbable?
For 12 years Saddam made a mockery of disarmament, and secretly continued to acquire the very weapons he was pledged to destroy. The country was filled with UN Inspectors, but they never had a clue to the secret weapons programs until defectors blew the whistle. When the UN Inspection teams began to be tougher, Saddam kicked them out of country. The only consequence was a few days of cruise missiles. Four years later, Saddam again ignored demands that he disarm and refused to permit inspections until heavily armed American troops began to gather on his borders. He grudgingly let in a small number of Inspectors, and stonewalled them. He made a large declaration that said he had no prohibited weapons, but failed to account for huge stores of prohibited weapons that were well-known and documented. He denies everything, and when caught in his web of lies, just makes a token adjustment to his existing position. That's the history of a man who has invaded two of his neighbors in recent memory, who has fired missiles into the urban centers of Saudi Arabia and Israel. This is the man who has made a life of murder and lying to achieve his personal ends. Is the a man to be trusted?
If we do fail to resolve the Iraqi problem again, what will the probable result be? First, we will have to remove our troops and then Saddam will have no reason to comply with the Inspectors. He and his French/Russian partners will push to have sanctions lifted so that Iraqi oil can be exploited. Saddam will lead the Inspectors around by their noses until he tires of the game and then will kick them out of the country. He will step up his weapons programs, and his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons will again take center stage. If he can sell oil, he will be able to afford rebuilding his military strength to Iran War levels. Inside Iraq, repression will continue and some who are now ready to overthrow him will be discovered, tortured and murdered. Kuwait and Turkey will be threatened, and targeted for terrorist attacks.
At the end of the year, Saddam will be stronger and more dangerous. Our allies and Saddam's neighbors will have less faith in the ability of the United States to effect change in the region. Saddam's threat will be more evident, and once again the UN will be forced to take some action. What will the world's opinion about disarming Saddam be like if he invades Kuwait or Iran again. If an Iraqi nuclear missile explodes over Israel, what will the UN say to the survivors? Will the world's pacifists still want to shield Saddam if his biological, or nerve agents are unleashed on New York, or London?
What action will the UN be able to take a year from now? If Bush withdraws now, it is very unlikely he will be able to reassemble a similar force during a Presidential election campaign. The cost in dollars spent todate will have been wasted, and the loss of American credibility will be enormous. So who will provide the military force to disarm Saddam Hussein after he has another year to strengthen his forces, and acquire additional so-called weapons of mass destruction? France? Russia? Belgium?
That's whats wrong with putting off the unpleasant task for another year, or two.
2. "Does anyone seriously think that if we don't go to war with Iraq in the next few days, Saddam will destroy us". No, Saddam won't destroy us in the next few days if we don't disarm him. However, if we don't disarm him in the next few weeks the danger that he poses to world peace, stability and security will take a quantum jump. That's the direct threat that will continue to increase over the next year, or so, until Saddam again lashes out at the world. The indirect threat is that others, notably Kim Jong-Il, will interpret the withdrawl of American forces as a weakness to be exploited. The DPRK can not be encouraged to threaten and push the world toward the brink of war. Why would Kim believe that we are willing to oppose a nuclear armed DPRK when we hadn't the stomach to fire the coup de grace into the head of his friend Saddam?
Finally, to withdraw without carrying this to its conclusion would very likely reshape American foriegn policy into one of Isolation. In my opinion, it would be a world disaster if the United States suddenly ceased being actively involved in world affairs.
