Yanny& Falk & others,
On Iraq. One would prefer to act in unison with a broad coalition. We aren’t exactly sure what will happen if we do act. We aren’t exactly certain what will happen if we don’t act.
However, we do have plenty of evidence of Saddam’s extremely brutal nature. We do have evidence of wide-scale use of chemical weapons. We do know that he has stockpiles of WMD and we do know that he wants more and will do anything to get them. We do know that he ignores every resolution and every action we have taken. We do know that he will let his people remain in abject poverty and suffering because of his brutal nature and desires.
Our embargoes and restrictions have caused considerable suffering on the average Iraqi. That is a shame. But the responsibility for this lies with the Iraqi regime. Nothing would please the US more than a peaceful, fairly moderate regime in Iraq that was willing and able to trade openly on the free market. There’s no need for them to be US toadies; there’s no reason for them to lose their sovereignty in any way. There is ample reason for them to join their place in the ‘civilized’ world and they can do so and keep their culture, traditions, religion etc.
The impediment to this is Saddam and his brutal regime; not the US, Israel or anyone else. This guy will stop at nothing to satisfy his ego and desires. I am convinced that he would gladly sacrifice his people to do so. They are the victims.
Now the problem with the situation is that peace today is warm and comfortable, and it is really hard to move from the status quo, when you are warm and comfortable. Instead, we tend to wait until we are cold and uncomfortable, before we change the status quo. The problem with this is that the transition is very dangerous when a madman is at play. The price to be paid for becoming cold and uncomfortable could be extremely high.
To me this is like a police analogy….prevention is great, we reduce crime, we make the streets safe. Then we start questioning why we spend so much on the police. We erode their budget. Crime goes up. We start screaming for more police.
The action that the US is considering is preventative. By its very nature, you cannot be certain of the outcome or your return on this investment. At some point, you have to make judgement calls. There will always be sound arguments on both sides. Believe me, I do not dismiss your logic out of hand. It is relevant and should be considered.
But…it’s 11 years later and the same wacko is still in charge and shows no sign of mercy for his own people. At the same time, he continues to pursue WMD quests. We are playing with fire. Sooner or later he will succeed in his quest. It will then instantly be too late for us to do anything. Preventive maintenance is just that…before it breaks down.
Why does no one else join the party? Because they are still warm and comfortable. They know what is the status quo and they know how to deal with that. They are afraid of changing that equation. I doubt any of the European leaders actually wants Saddam in power. Likely they all want Saddam out of power. But, it’s messy business and the outcome is uncertain. So, it is much easier to wait until tommorrow. You know this line of thought…
When they came in the night for the Catholics, I said nothing, as I am not Catholic. When they came the next night for the unionists, I said nothing, as I am not a unionist. When they came the next night for the academics, I said nothing, as I am not an academic. When they came on the last night for me, there was no one left to say anything.
I submit that with the exception of the US, we are saying nothing.
Imagine if Bush had not said anything at all in the past year about Iraq. Would we be better off? I submit that you have to keep the pressure on the madmen of the world, and sooner or later, you have to act. Perhaps the question is not why act today…but rather, why NOT act today? What exactly do we expect to change if we say and do nothing?
Anyway, enough of my rant. I do acknowledge your points and there is merit in them. But, it’s high time to get tough and sometimes leadership means that you move first and without total group consensus.
SUD
