UDS, its fair to say that for many people the war would have a moral component. To free Iraq from Saddam, release the oil revenue to the people of Iraq, Have elections with two or more candidates. To stop the torture, the disappearances, the just really sick stuff that you can’t believe is happening in an advanced nation like Iraq. All of that, to me, is a moral argument for ending Saddam’s regime. Along with, finally, putting an end to the disarmament two step. To enforce the long-standing agreement with Saddam to disarm. To free up all that money - spent on arming Iraq unnecessarily, the palaces, the triple redundant security for a crazed tyrant - for the Iraqi people also.
But, what about the supposed plan for the Special Republican Guard to take fortified positions in Baghdad and use chemical and biological weapons to maximize overall casualties? I’m not sure how many people that might kill. Clearly, there are strong practical and moral arguments against starting a war with a madman, as tempting as the arguments on the other side are. If the war plan depends on the other side surrendering, or, maybe millions of civilians might die in a chemical and biological holocaust - time to give peace (keep sending in the troops) at least a temporary chance.
Also, if Bush miscalculates the post-war and the regional situation decays into general chaos, violence, or increased tyrrany, the whole point of going will be subverted. So, what happens in Iraq is a test for anything Bush wants to do for the remainder of his presidency.
Whether President Bush understands all the moral and geopolitical dimensions of this potential war the way we want him to UDS, I admit, is an open question. The Turkish deal, if true, makes me wonder what Bush is thinking. Screw the Kurds, again? I’d literally be sick. But, the moral imperative to rid the world of the most horrible dictators exists whether the president believes it or not.
Back to the democratic Kurds. Yes, this is another moral litmus test for GWB. If he has any diplomatic skills, he can get an agreement to permit the status quo on the ground to continue without any precipitous military intervention by Turkey necessary. We can handle anything on the ground, obviously. We don’t need the Turks going in for “security?” reasons. Is that what the article said? How thin is that? Any evidence, at all, that the democratic Kurds have any real offensive designs on Turkey? If Iraq (the regime) hits Turkey, cynics would say, that is what we’ve been waiting for. Just stand back and watch what happens then. I think the six or so carrier groups in the area alone would make any Iraqi (or whoever for purposes of this topic) assault anywhere short-lived.