Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: palmer
Boxing Saddam in with sanctions has drawbacks, but it doesn't add wildcards.

Iraq is working hard to produce those wildcards even as we speak. Are we going to let them?

Ultimately you have to decide what course of action is going to have the highest probability of leading to a desirable result.

IMHO, doing nothing in Iraq has a zero probability of leading to a desirable result. They will continue their efforts and eventually get to the point where they cannot be dealt with without massive loss of life on both sides. It is inevitable that left to his own devices Iraq would have the bomb, and the will to use it, as they have demonstrated time and again.

On the other hand, war has a fair probability of leading to a stable post-Saddam regime in Iraq, provided it is handled carefully and thoroughly. A post-Saddam Iraq, reconstructed under US control to a US design, can be the cornerstone of a more modern, less radicalized Islamic world. Much as or former enemy Japan is now the strongest bulwark of liberal democracy in the Far East, and Germany is the democratic heart of Europe.

This will be hard work, and it will be expensive in both blood and treasure. But I don't see how we have any choice. Unless we are willing to resign ourselves to 500 years of increasing Jihadi violence, armed with ever increasingly powerful WMDs, we have to act to change the course of the Islamic world now.

The way to change the course of the Islamic world is to plant the seed of liberal democracy in the sandy soil of the Middle East, and nurture it while it grows. But before you can plant, you have to turn up the weeds that are in the field. Saddam's regime is the weed. The US Military is the harrow.

101 posted on 02/04/2003 6:08:18 AM PST by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: gridlock
IMHO, doing nothing in Iraq has a zero probability of leading to a desirable result.

We certainly aren't doing nothing: sanctions, weapons material embargo, overflights, etc.

On the other hand, war has a fair probability of leading to a stable post-Saddam regime in Iraq, provided it is handled carefully and thoroughly.

Not likely IMO. Between Kurds, Shiites, Iran and Turkey, there are too many parties who will want the new state to fail for their own gain. We can try to give everyone a piece like in Bosnia, but then we will be stuck there forever keeping the peace in an artificial country. Both Japan nor Germany had single unified cultures.

don't see how we have any choice. Unless we are willing to resign ourselves to 500 years of increasing Jihadi violence, armed with ever increasingly powerful WMDs, we have to act to change the course of the Islamic world now.

History teaches us that the bad guys get all weapons sooner or later. We can't uninvent NBC weapons, but we can reduce the number of bad guys. Saddam and his supporters are bad guys, but their replacements will probably end up being worse in the long run and wars are a surefire way to create more bad guys. That is the other lesson of history: in each war we fight, we ally ourselves with guys who end up being bad guys. Bin Laden and Saddam are just two examples.

The way to change the course of the Islamic world is to plant the seed of liberal democracy in the sandy soil of the Middle East, and nurture it while it grows.

Don't think that will happen; Algeria is a good example of a more likely result.

139 posted on 02/04/2003 8:28:47 PM PST by palmer (How's my posting? 1-888-ITS-GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson