Posted on 10/03/2002 11:42:40 PM PDT by HAL9000
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON, Oct 3, 2002 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- US Secretary of State Colin Powell has suggested that although Washington seeks a "regime change" in Iraq, it could leave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power if he disarms fully, The USA Today reported Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
I wonder how many terrorist groups he can finance with all the money he will save on armament?
The contract award comes with an order for 25 million doses. If everything goes according to plan, the vaccine will be through safety by the end of 2003, so presumably the stockpile could be in place by early 2004. That gives us about 18 months to put in place the infrastructure for high-speed, mass-distribution to millions of people after an attack is detected. That piece is being put in place, use Saddam's non-existent smallpox threat as a stalking horse.
Assuming Bush's plan is essentially to devote his first term to removing Saddam from the world stage -- e very reasonable objective with a realistic time-frame ("Saddam better remember, I'm a very patient man"), then I could see a pincer movement war starting next spring over the weapons inspections pretext, climaxing with a showdown in Bagdhad in spring of 2004. On this plan, Bush could have Saddam out six months before the next presidential election, which sounds about right.
My main concern would be whether we can really get the infrastructure in place to make a serious dent in casualties after, say, an NYC subway anthrax dispersal, and whether we have any decontamination technology on that time frame that could save us from having to totally right off the cities where the releases occur. The more I think about those problems, the less optimistic I am about a solution, unfortunately. Thus, I am far from discounting the possibility that Bush may simply put on a song-and-dance over the weapons stuff, and let Saddam off with a nod and wink ("Not guilty, but don't do it again!"). Powell is obviously pushing that option here, but to what end is the question.
How are we in a stronger position to retaliate after his next attack? Why, if we dare not publicly point the finger at him now, should he be deterred, as his threat becomes more credible and ours less so?
We don't know there will be a next attack. He may have gotten his rocks off sufficiently on 9/11. It seems awfully quiet out there. Let's face it, as an artistic masterpiece of revenge, September 11 far surpasses anything else in human history -- Saddam has plenty of reason to quit while he's ahead. Saddam is a realist, as well as sadist. Why should he asks for the stars, when he already has the moon?
Why, if we dare not publicly point the finger at him now, should he be deterred, as his threat becomes more credible and ours less so?
Point number one: We are the ones who are being deterred, not him. He already got his rocks off on September 11, remember?
Point number two: his threat will inevitably become less credible with time, because our biodefenses will get better. He's probably gambling that, at age 65, either he'll be dead, or 9/11 will be a dead issue by the time we can take a gamble on the taking him out. He may very well have calculated correctly. Everything else about the 9/11 attacks was masterfully conceived and executed. Why should we assume the back-end security wasn't similarly well thought through?
At least one attack every two years since the Gulf War . Revenge and deniability: Saddam's a grandmaster of that game. Why stop now?
>We are the ones who are being deterred, not him. He already got his rocks off on September 11, remember?
I was not speaking of his being deterred now, but questioning how he would be deterred in the scenario you described: "Bush may simply put on a song-and-dance over the weapons stuff, and let Saddam off with a nod and wink ("Not guilty, but don't do it again!")." I'm saying he won't be deterred then either. He'll continue the revenge + deniability game. No reason for him not to try again for the White House and the Congress. It took him two shots to take down the WTC. Remember?
What is more pitiful than an emasculated tyrant? Seeing fear in his eyes and "Oh! Sh*t!" on his lips will be worth it. Same for Bill Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.