So said Scott Ritter, UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq and staunch opponent of Iraq invasion, in his book “Endgame” (closing paragraphs in Chapter 9).
Well, then, ruling out the invasion, how should have “the United States and the world deal with the vexing and dangerous problem of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”?
Invading on false pretences without any consideration or planning for the aftermath and in so doing creating chaos, destruction and disorder? Then put me down for keeping up the sanctions that so successfully kept him chained but ease up on the humanitarian side.
Then when a competent US Administration, without ideological blinders on, is in place work towards a properly planned international humanitarian intervention with non-muslim forces getting out ASAP without trying to impose free market fundamentalism on the place.
I was for overthrowing Saddam when both the US and UK Govts were arming him and denying he gassed anyone. I just wasn’t for doing it in such a mindblowingly incompetent fashion.
But then again I was generally against arming and supporting murdering dictators as a matter of practicality and principle.
When the choice is between doing things stupidly and doing nothing at all then the correct choice is to not balls things up further.
You really do have a proverbial bug up your butt about justifying the invasion of Iraq, don’t you?
I’ve not read Ritter’s book, so I don’t know what his case is. Knowing what we know now, while Saddam may have been “vexing” to the powers that be, is there a case that he was “dangerous” – at least, to the US (and/or other non-Middle East countries)? Furthermore, I think the following needs explanation:
To make the case, I’d think that we need to establish that Saddam: (1) had retained weapons capability and (2) was strengthened (in any meaningful way) by: (a) his “perceived” victory (not an actual victory), (b) the Gulf War coalition (what is that? I ask in all seriousness, as I’ve never heard the term except in reference to Bush’s “coalition of the willing”), and © the UN.
He’s refering to the first gulf war coalition.
Can you give me more information? I’m still not sure what that refers to or who/what countries it includes. Thanks for your patience…
Um, the group of countries that banded together to fight the first Persion Gulf War in 1991? See here.
Saddam Hussein was a cruel tyrannical genocidal maniac, dangerous to the world.
And it would be better that we should have directly assisted him to develop whatever weapons of mass destruction he wished to have than to do what we did. The world would be safer, the average Iraqi would be safer, the average American would be safer, the average Israeli would be safer.
(I’m not saying he could not have been forcibly removed from power without the cure being worse than the disease, just that this is now the most thoroughly screwed pooch in the history of American foreign policy)
Ah, I see – I misunderstood something; the “strengthening” does not refer to three separate items, but one item: the “perceived victory” over three groups. :smack: That makes much more sense. Sort of – I still think a case would need to be made that Saddam would’ve been strengthened in any meaningful way by the perceived, not actual, victory.
In rhetrospect (well, for me :)) containment was probably the best thing…and just wait Saddam out and watch as the country disintigrated on its own in the aftermath. It would have been much worse on the Iraqi’s (IMHO) even than what is currently going on, but it would have been MUCH better for the US…and would have left us free to deal from a stronger position with Iran. I seriously doubt Iran would have suddenly announced its renewal of its nuclear ‘peaceful energy’ program had the US not invaded…not because they feel threatened (again, IMHO) but because there wouldn’t have been a window available to them in which the US military was so stretched that we literally COULDN’T do anything about it. I think this is part of why North Korea is also been getting froggy. A blind man could see the US has its hands full in Iraq…and who ELSE is going to smack either nation back into line if not us?
I think we should have simply left the sanctions in place (I disagree with tagos that the ‘humanitarian side’ should have been changed…that was SUPPOSED to be what the whole Food for Oil fiasco was to address)…perhaps with a bit of house cleaning on the actual programs (and the now obvious abuse happening). Militarily Iraq should have continued to be kept down…No Fly Zones north and south as before (no matter HOW much The World™ continued to squak 
). And Saddam should have had his balls busted (diplomatically) ever chance we got. No assassination though…to my mind a dead Saddam would have not been something to look forward too any sooner than it would have happened anyway.
-XT
This is really a fascinating question, and I can remember in the build up to the latest Gulf war posting something along the lines of:
*I don’t care about WMDs, and I pity the fool terrorist who has to get his WMDs from Iraq-- there are dozens of better places for would be terrorist to shop for them. The only way I could get behind this war is if:
and
I honestly don’t know how long it would’ve been practical to try and isolate Saddam, especially since he had his successor pretty much picked out and his death would not necessarily lead to a better opportunity for invasion. But, ISTM that the terms of the first Gulf War cease fire were eerily reminescent of the terms of the treaty of Versailles. You can’t keep a country in a permanently crippled state-- you either have to let it be a sovereign county, or you’ll end up going to war with it again at some point.
Back then I proposed that if we are at war and there are axis of evil countries, then we needed taxes to beat the axis like they did in WWII…
That was only half in jest, I really think not having a bigger economical weapon against terror (you know, more money for military material, more aid to friendly nations, more education and more aid to democratic development) has been and continues to be one of the biggest mistakes of the current “war”
But I digress… Back then I also thought using a WWII idea that worked then: we should have considered Iraq our Soviet union, like Churchill and the allies did in WWII. I’m still amazed that the Allies had the foresight to wave away the real ugliness of the new friend against Fascism, but I do think they realized in that in good time, they would deal with it properly; like Lincoln once said: “one war at a time gentlemen”
It was not necessarily that our Stalin would have been Saddam, as I mentioned before we could indeed had made a Haiti maneuver and get the dictator and the family into exile and allow a more friendly strongman to use the current power structure to continue, but pressure would remain to make Iraq:
1)Continue giving the cold shoulder to Osama.
2)Help us get Osama and Henchmen and many sanctions would go away (The embargo on any military stuff would remain)
3)To remain unfriendly to the Iran government
4)Make moves to an eventual democratic future (this is assuming that by then Osama and buddies were captured or dead)
All that is with the assumption that we should had then concentrated on getting the perpetrators of 9/11, I do wonder if the decision to go to Iraq was influenced by the fact that with Osama and buddies traveling around Pakistan, that going into Iraq sooner was to then not have to deal with the pressure from the American people to get Osama in a Nuclear country like Pakistan. So Bush, Instead of having to explain forever that Pakistan was a no-no found that it was better to take on Saddam to show he was doing something after Osama got away, it is still a scandal that Bush has gotten away with his lies (equivocations) that continue to equate the war on terror with the war in Iraq.
The decision to invade Iraq also mirrors the Crusaders on the last one deciding that the Holy land was out of the question so better then to attack and pillage Constantinople!
It is very interesting to notice that several possible targets like Egypt were discounted because many crusade states had commercial interests there, or were too powerful to take on back then.
I have a huge bug trying to find alternative solutions.
Extremely sad thing about this is that everything that makes the invasion unpopular makes the sanctions even more so.
Death of innocents? Thousandfold under sanctions.
No end in sight? Ditto.
With invasion, at least there are some positives; for one, Saddam is out.
In simple numbers, less innocents are dying, but more US servicemen are. Which means that US servicemen are dying for the innocents.
If, as Albright said, “the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying” for containing Saddam, perhaps the death of two thousand US servicemen is the price worth paying for his removal?
2. Making a deal with Saddam.
That is Ritter’s preferred solution. Well, at least it would be cynical, brave and may be even practical. Also, it would be political suicide for anyone in the West. Which is as it ultimately should be.
You are still digging from the last thread huh?
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=6916
As I pointed before, there was no need to do that; the big mistake was to dissolve the structure of the military and police that was in Iraq.
The only reason I comment on it is that…well, it’s kinda late for alternate solutions, don’t cha think? Hindsight justifications always seem to me to be a whole lotta sound and fury…and, well…you finish the quote. And you’ve not given any substance to the claim that Saddam was actually dangerous to the US or other non-Middle Eastern countries, nor that the result of sanctions are equivalent to “everything that makes the invasion unpopular” (which seems to be the crux of your case).
Anyway, it appears to me that the administration is looking for a way out of their damned fool war. As a political expediency (much to their shame), they’re also laying the groundwork for blaming the Iraqis for the possibly failed state. But, if it’s the case that the Iraqis are wholly responsible and on their own, what’s really different?
What I mean is, if success/failure is solely and ultimately in the hands of the Iraqi people, wouldn’t the appropriate course of action have been, not to invade their country on flimsy and faulty justification, but to support them once they took the initiative (if they ever did)? As many tried to get across to you in that South Africa thread you started, unasked-for invasion (and the resultant chaos) does not facilitate peace, nor is it conducive to setting up a democracy.
And this is not to say that invasion cannot be justified under any circumstances; rather, there was a piss-poor justification for this particular debacle. We can only hope that – poof – a miracle occurs and it ends well. Holding reality-based beliefs, however, I find my personal hope worn more than a bit thin by those currently in charge.
How come it’s never too late to insist that invasion was wrong, but it’s too late to ask what else could have been done? What if there was a solution nobody could see? If such solution could be discovered, perhaps it might help to improve the present situation.
But if you insist to put the past behind us, I offer what I think is the best assessment is: it was a horrible situation, the invasion didn’t improve it much, what now?
And I accepted that argument.
We should have just offered Saddam 100 billion dollars to go into exile in the neutral country of his choice. Would have been cheaper, and thousands of American mothers wouldn’t cry themselves to sleep every night.
Just to note, we are talking about a book Scott Ritter wrote in 1999 and which was republished in the fall of 2002, right?
The assumption that something “needed” to be done is a false one.
Unfortunately for all of us, the folks with the clarity to realize this were branded as “traitors,” “apeasers,” “old Europeans,” and “liberals.”
It wasn’t an assumption, it was a question. “Leave it exactly as it is” is one possible answer. I don’t understand the criticism toward this thread. I’ve been thinking about starting just such a thread for quite some time, and I find it to be one of the most interesting topics on the subject of Iraq.
Poor thing! At least you’re able to paint yourself as a martyr over and over again on this board. Presumably, that offers you some solice, or you wouldn’t bring it up so often. 
Now, John, don’t be bitter – after all, you have no one to blame but yourself for continuing to back the morons…