|::| Saturday, September 07, 2002
- |::| 8:23:37 AM
-
Why do we care if Saddam Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction"?
No, seriously: Why? Where is he likely to use them? Why would he use them, if he had them? What would be the benefit?
Let's consider a few points.
Who has "weapons of mass destruction" [WMDs], now? In the world, obviously, all of the "superpowers" have nukes, and nobody seriously doubts that they also have chemical weapons. In addition, all have less dramatic WMDs like NaPalm, daisy-cutters, heavy cluster bombs and the local equivalent of Spectre gunships. In the middle east, Israel has nukes, and Iraq may (I'll say "probably") -- but in the area, only Israel has a workable, reliable delivery system.
And everyone knows they'd use it.
Now, I'm not arguing for the demonization of Israel; I'm merely noting where the real lines of opposition lie. Who did Saddam attack in the Gulf War? Answer: Kuwait and Israel. Nobody else. Why Israel? Because that was what allowed him to cast himself as the defender of the Arab-Islamic world.
And therein lies an interesting truth: As long as Saddam exists, he constitutes a counterweight to Israeli power. As long as he is a pariah, he poses little threat to the remainder of the Arab world. If he is conquered, that counterweight goes away.
- |::| Godwin's Ghost 8:23:04 AM
-
A lot of people have been comparing Saddam's Iraq to Hitler's Germany, either explicitly or implicitly.
We've got to get them now, the argument goes, before they get us later -- just like them Nazis.
There's one big point of comparison that I never hear them make. In 1939, Germany was one of the world's great industrial powers. Its people could enjoy one of the world's better standards of living, while its socialized industrial machine built a great war apparatus. In 2002, Iraq has to starve its people to build its war machine.
