Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
I propose the following:
Saddam knows that if he fails to comply with the UN rules, he will be attacked. If he is attacked, he knows he will be defeated. Therefore, there must be some reason for not complying with those UN rules and that reason must be pretty important to Saddam, for he is risking his very life for it. What reason could possibly be important enough to risk it all? I can only think of one: he was in fact hiding WMDs when he had always maintained he was not. To me, that is the most reasonable and likely explanation.
|
I know you can only think of one reason, that's why I provided some plausible options for you to ponder.
Both of us seem to agree that Saddam would enjoy nothing more than to create problems for the U.S. (be they WMDs or other acts of violence). The effects of our actions are that scores of people (whether it's the majority is a seperate matter of debate but it is clear there is a significant number of Iraqi and other Middle Eastern citizens) now have a negative view of our policies. Yes, many people did before. Now, however, even moderates may have stepped over the line to fundamentalist reasoning. (Remember the enemy of my enemy argument--well, the same thing applies to moderates and fundies over there as well as over here). That stated, Saddam could be eating ice cream in a cave or Cuba for all we know. Meanwhile, anger is rising among the Middle Eastern people--including in the minds of the people we most dearly want to align with our intersts. An odd state of affairs--with Saddam in power, the people oppose their oppressor. With Saddam gone, the focus becomes foreign powers. Unless Saddam is languishing in prison somewhere without any money he seems to be achieving his goals.
Now you explain how capitulating to the "Western Imperialist demands" would have met his goals better than what has transpired given that had he done that, he would have lost one of the main components of his rule--the violence and strenght it takes to stand up to the greatest power on earth, currently. Had he lost face to his fearful populace the chances of his remaining in power *at their hands* was dramatically reduced. Yet, I suspect they would have removed him in a bloody revolution
except this time we would have joined the uprisers and he would be dead.
Obviously, "following the rule of law" was not my only argument and given that you have read the majority of my posts I suspect you merely accidentally committed that hasty generalization. Rather, I'm arguing that Saddam's moves seem to be much more complicated than you give him credit for. Such shortsighted conclusions regarding motives and ramifications have been a guiding principle in our failed foreign policies. This concept I'm referring to actually has a label--blowback.