[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

[ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...

The *real* case has yet to be made in public, at
least in any totally convincingly fashion. It
suddenly occurs to me that I may be able to do so
here.    (01)

Subject: Saddam Hussein    (02)

Item: If he has used biological and chemical weapons
      on the Kurds, why would he care if someone used
      them on us? (It's hard to see why he would.)    (03)

Item: Since he has given $5,000 to the families of
      Palestinian suicide bombers, he obviously has no
      ethical or moral objections to activities of that
      kind.    (04)

Item: The blockade and limits on oil sales have left
      him impoverished, on a "tight budget".    (05)

Item: Al Queda, though impaired, most likely still has
      somewhere between hundreds of millions and billions
      to spend.    (06)

Item: Given that combination of circumstances, would 
      Hussein be reluctant to sell chemical or biological
      weapons to Al Queda. (Why would he?)    (07)

Item: If Al Queda had them, would they be reluctant to use
      them? (Experience suggests the answer is "No".)    (08)

If so, then what is the proper and/or viable U.S. response?
There are several possibilities:    (09)

   1) Maintain the status quo, and simply hope that it never 
      happens. Try to plug that sieve that is our open 
      borders (which we would ideally like to *leave* open,
      and attempt to put a cordon around every possible target,
      for an indefinite period of time.     (010)

      Feasibility: Unlikely. While it is relatively plausible 
      to contain a geo-political entity, it is virtually
      impossible to contain an organization that is not
      geographically-limited.    (011)

   2) Relax the economic sanctions, back away, and remove the
      pressure to sell such weapons.    (012)

      Feasibility: Unlikely. Kuwait becomes an Iraqi province.
      In all probability, the strategy of appeasement will work
      no better than it did prior to WWII.    (013)

   3) Change the game.
      Achieve regime change.    (014)

      Feasibility: Doable. Likely to stabilize the middle east.    (015)

Honestly, I don't see a viable alternative. Perhaps
someone can point to a weakness in the argument, or 
produce some seriously viable alternative. At the moment,
though, I'm not persuaded that there is any viable alternative.    (016)