‘Many Places’? No. Some other places? Yes. The most dangerous weapons really do require the resources of a state to create, weaponize, and deploy. Sure, terrorists might get WMD from Syria, or Yemen, or North Korea, or Iran. But taking out Iraq will help with all of those, because these states will be faced with the reality that the U.S. is SERIOUS, and that they could be next if the U.S. finds out that they have provided WMD to terrorists.
Terrorists by themselves are a dangerous, but manageable threat. Rogue states by themselves are dangerous, but containable. The REAL threat comes from the intersection of rogue states and terrorists. Think of it this way - a suicide bomber is the best ‘smart bomb’ in the world. Equip him with a small nuke, or a few liters of Ricin or Smallpox, and youv’e got a cruise missile that can sneak around for a year, figure out a way to hide in shipping, move through the U.S., and detonate itself at exactly the right time. And even better, it may not even be traceable back to the state that ‘launched it’.
Saddam Hussein with a couple of thousand ‘smart bombs’, each with a small supply of weapons of mass destruction, is a serious threat to the United States.
So, Sam Stone, I assume you then dispute CyberPundit’s assertion in this thread that there is little chance/evidence that Saddam would pass on WMDs if he were left alone? I assume so, since that seems to be the key difference of opinion when arguing whether the possibility of Saddam passing stuff on to terrorists is a point for or against war (and one of those I wanted to clear up with my OP)…
Oh, you mean when we won but didn’t have a mandate to get him?
The only authority G.H.W. Bush had was to get him out of Kuwait, and yet he’s criticized for not getting Saddam. Now his son has a plan to get him and he’s criticized for wanting to get Saddam. You can’t have it both ways, people.
(Addendum to previous post: another thread has reminded me that the CIA released a report to Congress agreeing with CyberPundit’s POV re: the chance of Saddam spreading WMDs without a war, and that Rumsfeld, quite rightly in this case, pointed out that there’s bound to be differences of opinion even within government, so I realize this is a contentious issue all the way down the line. Again, thus this thread.)
Oh, and Airman Doors, I’m not sure how comparable the two Bush Gulf situations are. While you are correct about Bush Sr.'s mandate, I think people are more criticizing the process by which Bush Jr. means to “get Saddam,” not the fact that he actually has a plan. I’m not sure how clear I’m being, but I’ll assume Lissa and the others will be able to explain better.
Hi Mandelstam.
In Pollack’s taxonomy, “peaceful disarmament” (presumably a result of sanctions+inspections) is synonymous with “containment”. Pollack supported this latter strategy, until he concluded that the sanctions regime had fallen apart and couldn’t be put back together.
Tuckerfan: I’ve updated the 6-12 month estimate a little. I’m getting something closer to 1.5 - 3 years. That is, “for the hypothetical average Iraqi, a war to get rid of Saddam is no worse than living under Saddam for 18-36 months.” Of course this ignores non-fatal injuries and the not inconsequential trauma of living in a war zone.
Of course, once the war’s over, you’ll have tons of international aid agencies rushing into help the Iraqi’s along with a couple of billion dollars of foreign aid from various government’s. However, if Saddam die’s of old age, I doubt that you’ll same level of aid being given to Iraq. So, the folks who’re emotionally traumatized by the war stand a better chance of getting help, than those who’d be traumatized by the horrific conditions which exist solely under sanctions.
IAC, if we use Afghanistan as a model, the US ignored 'em after they kicked the Soviets out which was what allowed the Taliban to come to power. We all know what they did. It’s entirely possible that if Saddam’s left more or less alone, that after he dies we could see a Taliban-like state rise up in Iraq. This, of course, would be a bad thing.
Greetings flowbark. Not sure about Pollack or his precise taxonomy but, yeah, my point was that neither disarmament nor containment constitutes a policy of simple deterrence.
Though, personally, I don’t see how one can accept US allegations that WMD still exist and come up with a vocabulary in which containment = disarmament. Containment can be a prelude to disarmament or, for those who accept it, a sufficient end in itself.
Also, there’s more in the current arsenal of the peaceful disarmament camp than sanctions + inspection.
If it seems otherwise, my point isn’t at all to quibble or split semantic hairs. My point is that–and the hawks do deserve some credit for this–the major players for peace are not advocating the status quo, or even ruling out the possible need for war. I ask for recognition of that only b/c I myself don’t think that the appropriate course at present is, to quote Sam, to “take out” Iraq. I think there are other good options on the table, and I prefer them on strategic as well as moral grounds.
Mandelstam: I had forgotten about Carnegie’s plan. Feel free to visit the thread on “Muscular Disarmament”.
-----the major players for peace are not advocating the status quo, or even ruling out the possible need for war.
Hm. That’s not my assessment. I’d say that France and Germany are the major players. Furthermore, neither are advocating inspections backed up by soldiers empowered to attack Iraqi agents who shuttle various materials away from inspections sites. Which is what the Carnegie plan involves.
What France has been advocating is tripling the number of inspectors. I regard that proposal as “nonresponsive”; I would characterize it as window-dressing. Note that they did NOT advocate appointing the most experienced inspectors they could find, in contrast to the Carnegie plan.
So, I would say the major players for peace (France and Germanty) are ducking the issue.
flow, there were reports a few days ago that France and Germany were devising a plan involving UN troops. Whether they still are working on such a plan or have abandoned it I don’t know. I see the current French proposal as a first volley: after all, much depends on what the report actually says on Friday. I agree that a much more detailed plan is needed (and look forward to reading your link); and I’m not suggesting that France and Germany should be reflexively praised. But I think that they (and some others) are providing some much needed breaking action on what has been an otherwise headlong rush towards war–largely based on Iraqi weather. And it seems as though the American public is responding (see the Times article I posted in your “Muscular” thread). So I think they deserve better than “ducking” status.
Tuckerfan, the Times has reported Blix as being favorable to the idea of more inspectors, as well as more time. There is no question that he also says the Iraqis must cooperate–nobody denies tghat. But he has also said that there has been some (if still insufficient) progress in that regard. These are not seen as mutually exclusive things by Blix. On the whole, therefore, it’s fair to say that he’s responded favorably to what the French have been proposing though naturally he’s got to be as objective as possible and to focus on his report.
