First of all, I love the completely arbitrary prediction of success “estimated at 70-80%”. I would love to see the process by which they arrived at that number:
“Hmm… we need to pull a convincing number out of our collective butts, Bob. What sounds good? 90%”
“No, Ed, that sounds way too optimistic. Drop it down to about 75%. That sounds more believeable.”
“Good idea. How about a range? 70-80% It sounds all scientific, and stuff.”
“Great idea, Ed! How about a big round of self-affirming hugs?”
That being said, what makes you think Saddam is going to sit there, while we create a government in his own backyard, for the express purpose of overthrowing him? And assuming that we manage to pull that off without the whole shebang getting gassed, you then believe that Saddam is going to say, “Okay, you got me, guys. I give up. Have fun with your new government!” It would still require a war to get Saddam out. The only difference is that Saddam would have that much more time to prepare, and that he would know for certain that we were going to attack.
Basically, the Bush plan is to overthrow Saddam with military force, then institute a new government. This plan is to institute a new government, then overthrow Saddam. All the war, with none of the actual logic.
You’ll have to excuse me when I say that this is by far the stupidest idea to come out of the anti-war crowd yet. WorldCitizen.org should be proud.