HankMorgan
27th February 2003, 06:53
Who remembers February 1998? Does anyone remember
Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger on the campus
of Ohio State explaining the Clinton administration
plan to bomb Iraq until the UN weapons inspectors
are let back into Iraq?
President Clinton's threat wasn't credible (little
of what he said throughout his term was). Clinton
did an about face, Iraq wasn't attacked and the
inspectors never made it into Iraq.
The UN weapons inspectors never made it into Iraq
that is until Saddam Hussein faced the credible
and unwaivering threat of removal by force presented
by President Bush. My point is not to denegrate
Bill Clinton. Although that is an enjoyable side
light to my argument. The point I'm making is Hussein
has not and will not cooperate with the United Nations
unless he perceives an immediate and credible threat.
The reason I make this point is to show that the idea
of containing Hussein and holding him harmless with
continued inspections will not work because it requires
the United States to present a constantly increasing
and credible threat to his stronghold in Iraq. It's
not possible to keep the heat on Hussein forever if
for no other reason than the next US president may
have a spine with the same suppleness as Bill Clinton's.
It's expensive monetarily and politically to constantly
ratchet up the military pressure.
If the US, the UK and their allies do not remove
Saddam Hussein from power, they must walk away
completely. It isn't financially or politically
possible to keep enough pressure on Hussein to keep
him cooperative forever. The two choices are to
take out Hussein or give him free rein. Which is
the lesser evil?
I'm curious to see if any of you sharp leftist can
think of a way to cage Hussein short of the constantly
increasing military pressure that seems to work.
Maybe you don't think Hussein needs a cage.
Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger on the campus
of Ohio State explaining the Clinton administration
plan to bomb Iraq until the UN weapons inspectors
are let back into Iraq?
President Clinton's threat wasn't credible (little
of what he said throughout his term was). Clinton
did an about face, Iraq wasn't attacked and the
inspectors never made it into Iraq.
The UN weapons inspectors never made it into Iraq
that is until Saddam Hussein faced the credible
and unwaivering threat of removal by force presented
by President Bush. My point is not to denegrate
Bill Clinton. Although that is an enjoyable side
light to my argument. The point I'm making is Hussein
has not and will not cooperate with the United Nations
unless he perceives an immediate and credible threat.
The reason I make this point is to show that the idea
of containing Hussein and holding him harmless with
continued inspections will not work because it requires
the United States to present a constantly increasing
and credible threat to his stronghold in Iraq. It's
not possible to keep the heat on Hussein forever if
for no other reason than the next US president may
have a spine with the same suppleness as Bill Clinton's.
It's expensive monetarily and politically to constantly
ratchet up the military pressure.
If the US, the UK and their allies do not remove
Saddam Hussein from power, they must walk away
completely. It isn't financially or politically
possible to keep enough pressure on Hussein to keep
him cooperative forever. The two choices are to
take out Hussein or give him free rein. Which is
the lesser evil?
I'm curious to see if any of you sharp leftist can
think of a way to cage Hussein short of the constantly
increasing military pressure that seems to work.
Maybe you don't think Hussein needs a cage.