07-02-2004, 12:34 AM
Longest parenthesis on the forum award!
The parallel between Pearl Harbor and Sept 11 is a good one because essentially we responded in the same fashion (going to war with Japan, going to war with the Taliban).
I too believe that most of the cases for going to war and not going to war are pretty shallow. When I think about the war in terms of the long term implications I have to wonder what would have happened had we not gone to war. Maybe the Iraqi people would have overthrown Saddam anyway (although they tried that once and were violently put down).
However, had Saddam stayed in power I can't help but to think that he or one of his successors (most likely one of his famously brutal sons) would have become a problem sooner or later. And chances are the Iraqi regime would have resorted to some form of asymetrical warfare. After all it was made painfully clear to them that there is no way they could ever win in a traditional tactical conflict with the United States. They had the 4th largest Army in the world and they got decimated by the US and coalition forces. So the only way they could ever hope to hurt us would be through terrorism or strategic weapons. My guess is they probably would have tried to use terrorism and possibly a combination of strategic weapons.
"We would have had to do something about him anyway" is not really a rationale for going to war but that's just the way I think things would have panned out. In the end I think its critical that this new Iraqi government succeeds. If it does it will improve our relations with the Middle East and hopefully curtail the birth of more anti-West hatred.
The parallel between Pearl Harbor and Sept 11 is a good one because essentially we responded in the same fashion (going to war with Japan, going to war with the Taliban).
I too believe that most of the cases for going to war and not going to war are pretty shallow. When I think about the war in terms of the long term implications I have to wonder what would have happened had we not gone to war. Maybe the Iraqi people would have overthrown Saddam anyway (although they tried that once and were violently put down).
However, had Saddam stayed in power I can't help but to think that he or one of his successors (most likely one of his famously brutal sons) would have become a problem sooner or later. And chances are the Iraqi regime would have resorted to some form of asymetrical warfare. After all it was made painfully clear to them that there is no way they could ever win in a traditional tactical conflict with the United States. They had the 4th largest Army in the world and they got decimated by the US and coalition forces. So the only way they could ever hope to hurt us would be through terrorism or strategic weapons. My guess is they probably would have tried to use terrorism and possibly a combination of strategic weapons.
"We would have had to do something about him anyway" is not really a rationale for going to war but that's just the way I think things would have panned out. In the end I think its critical that this new Iraqi government succeeds. If it does it will improve our relations with the Middle East and hopefully curtail the birth of more anti-West hatred.