Arthur, most rational people would agree that Iraq is stalling. The question remains how far do you go to enforce and then correct a dangerous situation? I think that Bush should play out the diplomatic string to its conclusion. Like prosecutorial evidence, it will make the difference to the jury at decision time. If Hussein is foolish enough to make it difficult for his erstwhile Arab supporters to stick with him, then it will be much easier for us in battle and afterwards.
For now, there does not seem to be much developed about an occupation, and this is worrisome, leaving the Bush and Blair administrations open to suspicious that they are myopic and jumping from one hotspot to another without changing the lasting conditions. There are parallels in recent history that suit both sides of this debate. How do we tell which are relevant and which are sentimentality at work? Karen Arthur wrote: I sometimes wonder about the on again off again protracted inspector issues in Iraq and the comparisons with Japan leading up to Dec 7, 41, with the on again off again negotiations culminating in the attack. What is Iraq trying to accomplish? Assuming rationality of course. Either they are developing weapons, in which case negotiate and slow things down. Or they are not, in which case throw open the borders, let the inspectors in and anywhere and everywhere---all of which will lead to removing the sanctions.
