--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is if you're replacing him with a vacuum. Saddam could have > waited > another 6 month or a year, with more and more pressure. The > "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of the > Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose.
I completely disagree. Prior to 9/11 the "containment" strategy against Iraq was on the verge of falling apart. Smuggling to Iraq was rampant, and France, Russia, and China were becoming ever more open about their desire to end to sanctions regime on Iraq altogether. Moreover, I think that 9/11 created a unique political moment in the US, during which this country had reached the conclusion that leaving failed states to fester, even in far corners of the world, could pose a direct threat to the United States. It is my opinion, that this sentiment would have dissipated over time as 9/11 faded into memory, just as the biological terrorism attacks on the US in late 2001 have been nearly forgotten by most. In short, I believe that the post-9/11 world was a singular opportunity to marshall political support for removing Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship and liberating Iraq. I think that the Bush Administration was faced with the choice of either seizing that opportunity at that moment, or else forfeiting that opportunity for the long term. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because of the way they ramped up. There was a UN weapons > inspection program. Was there a UN weapons inspection program on-the-ground in Iraq before the US ramped up the pressure? > > I think that the US could have > > got a resolution at the UN that would allow for the imposition of > > smart > > sanctions, but I think that, as the bribing of the French UN > > delegate shows, > > that even smart sanctions would have workarounds. > > I'm not talking about sanctions. I'm talking about a phased > renewal. It was obvious in the first 24 hours that Saddam had > zero response, > the brave fighting talk of the legendary Iraqi Information > Minister aside. The plan showed zero flexibility. Pause, > regroup, and get the engineers into the southern towns > reconnecting water and power asap. > Make it better. Then move on. This could have given Saddam the ability to burn the oilfields, blow up dams, or engage in other scorched earth tactics. It could also have given him the opportunity to prepare the use of the WMD's which we believed him to have. > And the biggest missed opportunity of all - where's the pressure > on Mugabe, and the other African dictators? While the American > military can't take any more on right now, the diplomatic corps > ought to be sending strong messages to these tyrants - buck up or > you're next. Not this year, maybe not next year, but your card is > marked. It would be the single best bit of evidence that the Bush > Administration is after democracy, not revenge or power games or > oil. I suspect that a fair examination of the evidence would reveal that the USA has been very outspoken against today's worst dicators in the DPRK, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. I believe that Secretary Rice has often referred to these countries as "outposts of tyranny." The US has also been a leader in the crisis in Sudan. While the US has not explicitly threatened to occupy these countries, there is not currently political support in the US for threatening the invasion of another country outside the Middle East, nor do I expect that most of the other world's democracies would welcome such rhetoric from the US. Make no mistake, however, the US has been very strong and very public in its critiques of these countries. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
