The following is a hypothetical conversation about the ensuing war in Iraq which might be possible with a right winger. Assuming there exists such a person who wouldn't resort to personal attacks or outright lies. Let's just emphasize that it's hypothetical.
We need a preemptive strike to institute a regime change in Iraq.
Why?
Saddam Hussein is evil. He is an immediate threat to America.
No question he is evil. But how exactly is he a threat to America?
He possesses weapons of mass destruction and he is willing to use them against us.
Given the Gulf War, the weapons inspectors and the embargo, any weapons that Hussein might have are of little threat to us [link]. Especially compared to other regimes we do not trust, such as North Korea or Iran, whose weapons of mass destruction capabilities are far advanced over Iraq [link]. If we were truly concerned about weapons of mass destruction, we'd be going after those countries, not Iraq.
Even assuming he had weapons of mass destruction, he is not a threat to America. His missile range is limited to 400 miles [link, note: Conason says 650km, which is approximately 400 miles]. Israel might be threatened, but not us. And Israel is not asking us to go in.
Oh, he has weapons all right. Bush says so.
If Bush had real evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't he share that information? All he has given us is out-of-date reports and satellite photographs that don't demonstrate what he says they do [link 1, link 2 , my blog]. Why lie to the American public and the rest of the world if actually possesses real proof?
Well, I believe him. And Saddam could give those weapons to terrorists.
Hussein hates al Qaida, and the feeling is mutual [link]. In Iraq, if you follow the particular brand of fundamentalist Islam that al Qaida follows, you can be put to death [link, the Wahabbi sect]. To the terrorists, Hussein is as evil an infidel as we are [link 1, link 2]. Saddam wouldn't give them weapons for fear that they would use them against him.
Still, he probably has some weapons and it is our moral duty to remove them, and him, by force if necessary.
On the point of removing his weapons, fair enough. He has offered unconditional weapons inspections. We can go in, find any weapons he might have and destroy them. Case closed.
What are you, naive? He says they'll be unconditional, but he'll work to undermine the inspections and we won't find anything. Fool me once . . . you know?
Yes, I know. What you are forgetting is that between 1991 and 1998, UN weapons inspectors destroyed [90 to] 95% of his chemical and biological weapons stores, along with the infrastructure to manufacture more [link]. Weapons inspectors have been very effective. At the very least, they deserve a chance before we put our soldiers in harm's way. And the international community supports weapons inspections.
Who needs the international community? We are strong enough to do this ourselves. Forget the UN.
You are missing the bigger picture. We are still fighting a battle against terrorism. The single most effective weapon against terrorism is intelligence. And if terrorist cells are operating in foreign countries, then we need good relations with those countries to get the intelligence and cooperation we require. We can't just piss them off lightly.
Even if terrorism weren't an issue, this preemption business is a very dangerous precedent. If we can do it, what is to stop Pakistan or India from going after each other? Or Russia going into Georgia? Or China into Taiwan? Are you sure you want to open those cans of worms?
Another thing you are forgetting is that any unilateral military action we take in the Middle East -- and even some multilateral actions -- will drive more locals to fanaticism. In other words, we risk creating more terrorists.
Saddam is a terrorist.
Well, I guess that depends on your definition. I've already agreed that he is evil. But I think there is a fundamental difference between Saddam and terrorists like al Qaida: Hussein loves his own life more than he hates us. He is therefore deterrable. He has been deterred and contained for over 11 years now. He had biological and chemical weapons at his disposal during the Gulf War and he didn't use them. Why? Because he feared our retaliation. He is deterrable.
Terrorists are not. They hate us more than they love their own lives. We cannot stop them by threatening them with our military superiority; they will gladly sacrifice their lives in an effort to harm us. That makes them far more dangerous than Hussein will ever be. We should be concentrating on them, not Iraq.
You wimped out on removing Saddam by force. Wouldn't the world be a better place without him?
Theoretically, but getting there is a problem and then succeeding presents other problems. If he has chemical and biological weapons, and he's getting close to being taken out, what's to stop him from unleashing them when the end draws near? If I lived in Israel right now, I'd be packing my bags. Not to mention the fallout on our our troops . . . .
But assume we are able to take him out. Bush has talked about installing a democratic government in Iraq. Forgetting for the moment that Bush has a very shaky idea of what democracy is, if elections were held today, the Shiites would win with about 60% of the vote [link]. They would probably then form a strong alliance with Iran, creating a formidable fundamentalist Islamic theocratic axis. Do you actually think Bush will allow that to happen? We'll be committed to occupation for years, if not decades, over a people who fundamentally distrust us.
Saddam Hussein is not the only evil dictator in the world. There are many others whom we grudgingly live with because we respect the sovereignty of independent states. The Saudis are a good example. The holes in the administration's arguments for preemptive military strikes in Iraq are so huge it is laughable. Except it isn't funny. We are talking about the deaths of American soldiers, innocent Iraqi citizens, and chemical and biological weapons unleashed on Israel. This is deadly serious. And the folks in charge don't seem to understand any of it.
[Links and some additional information were added 10/2/02, and are denoted by brackets].
7:58:26 PM 
|
