Erik Reuter wrote:
But by attacking Iraq we would be establishing a pattern (begun in Afghanistan) on how we intend to solve the problem.On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:39:59PM -0700, Doug wrote:The point is obvious. If the way to combat terrorism and the threat of WMD is to attack and subdue sovereign nations, it would seem that we are undertaking a war that we can not win and that has the potential to escalate into a wider more violent confrontation. If we aren't going to go after everyone we consider a threat, why go after anyone?That is not at all obvious. In my experience, it is very rare to solve a difficult problem in one fell swoop. So you divide a problem into manageable steps and take action on one part of the problem.
I don't think that it is reasonable at all to assume that regime change in Iraq through a unilateral attack would make the world a safer place. I see it as potentially inciting anti-Americanism and inspiring terrorism across the globe. I see the barriers between Soviet built suitcase nukes, Saudi money and Al Quida terrorist cells becoming less substantial. I see the willingness of other countries to aid our efforts in hunting down Al Quida cells evaporating. And so on. Dan makes it seem obvious that oil is not and could not be the motivation for an incursion into Iraq, but I guarantee you that most of the rest of the world won't find our motivations as unequivocal. It is a rather short journey if the first step mires the traveler in quicksand.For this particular problem, it is decidedly NOT an all or nothing affair as you imply. Yes, there are a number of terrorist supporting countries and terrorist supporting groups in the world, but it is silly to say that we can only improve the safety and security of the world by eliminating every single one. The reasonable assumption is that regime change in Iraq will make the world a safer place, albeit not a completely safe place. A journey begins with the first step.
The key to that is the "and the world" part. I feel that if we try to go it alone we are not only doomed to fail, it's possible that we could initiate a calamitous set of events conceivably resulting in worldwide conflict, unprecedented destruction and loss of life. There may be a greater short term risk for the U.S. if we take a more diplomatic approach, but the potential rewards are much greater, IMO.Do you think that Bush is going to go conquer Iraq and then declare the War on Terrorism victorious?I hope not. I hope that the US and the world continue to put pressure on terrorism and terrorist supporting states.
Doug
Chess, not Checkers.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
