The Iraqi Logic Puzzle

For some time now, we have been told by various political leaders, and assorted 'experts', that Saddam Hussein is dangerous, evil, a tyrant, a dictator, and a modern day Hitler. We have also been informed that he gasses his own people, tortures and murders opponents, and basically stays in power by the use of fear or terror. More recently, the 'hot topic' of course has been claims that Saddam is concealing weapons of mass destruction, supporting international terrorism, and is a threat to regional and even international stability.

The solution to the Saddam problem, has been to impose sanctions, and more recently the return of UN inspectors to Iraq. Failure to comply with the UN, Saddam has been warned, will result in a massive military attack, with the goal of removing him from power, and the creation of a 'democratic' government - which will be a refreshing change for Iraq, and something of an oddity in the region....but I digress! In the West, Saddam's removal is euphemistically called, 'regime change'.

While on the surface, it all seems quite simple, and reasonable, the more I have thought about it, the more puzzling it has become.

Since the Gulf War a decade ago, Saddam has probably surmised that there are people in the West, who would quite like to see him toppled. He could hardly have failed to notice! The Bush family being just one cloud on his horizon. Calling Saddam a dictator, evil, etc, and having a policy of 'regime change', was probably a clue about possible US intent. It may even have made Saddam a little suspicious or defensive, knowing that he is a target.

As I have already mentioned, the UN is currently engaged in an attempt to disarm Iraq, of any weapons of mass destruction. Failure to comply, Saddam has been warned, will result in a display of military force, which will ultimately result in his removal. Which is what puzzles me.

Is it possible that Saddam sees this as a possible damned if you do, damned if you don't situation?

We are telling him, get rid of your weapons of mass destruction, or we will attack your country, and topple you.

While at the same time, it's an open secret that the same people who are telling him to disarm...or else, also think he's an evil tyrant, who needs to be removed. That there is a 'moral' reason to oust Saddam, in order to free the people of Iraq, from his dictatorship.

From Saddam's perspective, would he possibly feel that handing over any weapons / chemicals etc, is pointless, since the West intends to eventually remove him, even if complies with the UN resolutions? If that's the case, is this whole process, simply designed to get our support and blessing for forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power, rather than making him comply with UN resolutions on WMOD?

The ultimate objective, appears to be Saddam's removal, no matter what he does regarding the UN resolutions. His removal, may be a perfectly reasonable and 'moral' objective, but why would he do anything to help expedite his own removal?

Surely our political leaders know this? If they do, then is this whole debate about Iraq something of an illusion for our benefit, if the decision to attack, and for 'regime change', has already been made? Are we simply being conditioned to the concept of an invasion of Iraq?

As with comedy, it just appears to be a matter of timing, plus finding the right excuse for war, in order to win public opinion.