Beating the Wrong Drum
Does Saddam Hussein pose an immediate and growing risk to the safety and security of the United States? No.

Does al Qaeda pose an immediate risk to the safety and security of the United States? Yes.

Is Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq the state that poses the greatest threat to the safety and security of the United States? No.

Is Saddam so great an immediate risk that the US should break with the UN over deposing that regime? No.

Saddam is contained in his hole in Baghdad and any case for his immediate removal by invasion should first be made through the use of up-to-date intelligence on the state of the country, its military and its weapons programs. That has not been done. This information is needed not only to prove to the world that he must be removed now, but to aid our forces in effectively removing all threats the various wings of his regime pose. Moreover, we must have a coherent plan of how to rebuild the country once he have destroyed what is left of its leadership. It would be highly foolish to create a second Afghanistan while the first still smolders. The idea of ousting Saddam is a good one. Our current ideas of when and how to do it are bad ones. I can think of two reasons why there is scant evidence to show the immediate threat Saddam currently poses. One, his country is under high surveillance and all intelligence gathered shows very little. Two, his country is not under high surveillance. The former is a reason against invasion. The latter is inexcusable and a stronger reason against invasion.

Al Qaeda attacked the hearts of American culture, capitalism, government & military and is an immediate and growing danger to the United States. Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center and carved a chunk out of the Pentagon. Why is it that a pazzo in the middle of the desert is a greater danger than this group? Our cabinet secretaries have informed us all that al Qaeda is on the run, but is now reforming and the WOPR has elevated our current terrorist warning level. We have been told that it is inevitable that al Qaeda will strike us again and that we must adjust our lives and civil liberties to combat the threat that they pose. We have been told none of these things about Iraq. Why should we marshal the world and our military to combat the latter and not the former? I would argue that any threat that diverts our attention from annihilating al Qaeda must pose an equal or greater risk to our country. We have not been shown or even told that Iraq meets this standard.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2002 09:45:00 AM