Multilateral Mess
Most of the problems surrounded Iraq are the result of trying to respond to Saddam's bad behavior multilaterly. The '91 war ended with Saddam still in power because the multilateral coalition had ruled out his removal as an objective. Since that time attempts to disarm him have been a multilateral failure. Among many silly things being said by actors like the liberal fantasy president of West Wing is that inspections work. If they worked we would not be having a problem with Iraq and there would have been no need for 16 additional resolutions. The recent embrace of inspections by the French and the liberals in this country is disingenious. They only embrace inspections because they think they can avoid a regime change in Iraq. If the US was not ready to do a regime change in Iraq, these same people would be content to leave Saddam in power and lift the sactions.
The calls by some liberals for a more vigorous inspection regime and spreading the no fly zone to the entire country, such as Alan Combs suggest, are really opting for a low grade war as oppose to a more effective one. A low grade war would result in more Iraqi deaths at Saddam's hands and would not result in his disarming. Again, no liberal suggested such measures before the Bush administration put troops in place to do a regime change. The liberals had eight years to try their approach and it failed.
Another problem with the "give inspectors a chance" strategy is that it makes US troops more vulnerable to a WMD attack. The US forces are most vulnerable right now when they are not moving than they will be once the attack starts. With them all crowded into Kuwait, it will take fewer weapons to kill more people than would be the case when they are disbursed and on the move. Making a gift of time to Saddam at this point is a mistake that could have tragic consequences.
Most of the problems surrounded Iraq are the result of trying to respond to Saddam's bad behavior multilaterly. The '91 war ended with Saddam still in power because the multilateral coalition had ruled out his removal as an objective. Since that time attempts to disarm him have been a multilateral failure. Among many silly things being said by actors like the liberal fantasy president of West Wing is that inspections work. If they worked we would not be having a problem with Iraq and there would have been no need for 16 additional resolutions. The recent embrace of inspections by the French and the liberals in this country is disingenious. They only embrace inspections because they think they can avoid a regime change in Iraq. If the US was not ready to do a regime change in Iraq, these same people would be content to leave Saddam in power and lift the sactions.
The calls by some liberals for a more vigorous inspection regime and spreading the no fly zone to the entire country, such as Alan Combs suggest, are really opting for a low grade war as oppose to a more effective one. A low grade war would result in more Iraqi deaths at Saddam's hands and would not result in his disarming. Again, no liberal suggested such measures before the Bush administration put troops in place to do a regime change. The liberals had eight years to try their approach and it failed.
Another problem with the "give inspectors a chance" strategy is that it makes US troops more vulnerable to a WMD attack. The US forces are most vulnerable right now when they are not moving than they will be once the attack starts. With them all crowded into Kuwait, it will take fewer weapons to kill more people than would be the case when they are disbursed and on the move. Making a gift of time to Saddam at this point is a mistake that could have tragic consequences.
Comments
Post a Comment