Sunday, September 08, 2002

A fair editorial about Saddam, Blair and Bush and the call for multi-lateral support (they don't insist on a coalition, just an international acceptance of action), and this is in the Guardian even.

In this respect, President Bush and Tony Blair are right to argue a linkage between what happened in Afghanistan and what could happen in Iraq. Inaction against states which threaten regional and global peace is not an option.

Thus we have to act. However, Iraq, although indisputably dangerous, remains only part of a larger tapestry. The international community must insist that Iraq subjects itself to a proper weapons inspection regime, and back that demand with the threat of force. It must also now step up its efforts to support the Karzai regime in Afghanistan. It must intensify its pressure on Israel. It must stay focused on the elimination of al-Qaeda and be uncompromising about the use of force against those who directly and indirectly support it. America's President and Britain's Prime Minister must not only insist upon the legitimacy of their actions, but seek support for them, too.

They did leave out pressure on Arafat while we are at it. But, this is the Guardian, so you can only hope for so much.

I have no problem with trying to garner international acceptance for a moe against Saddam. It should be in our best interest. It give us basing and even support (refuelers, patrolling shipping lanes etc.) options it raises our standing and does make friendly nations feel they have a voice and are being given some measure of respect in that we show them the evidence we have and give a full accounting of our reasons. Let's be honest, pre-emptive action is letting the genie out of the bottle. We should put it all out in one coherent statement, with detailed evidence, and let the world know that Saddam poses a unique risk and that this action does not diminish the American view that we will never take actions of this nature without giving considerable consideratoin to all alternatives and possible consequences. At the same time those nations we go to should be open and willing to hear the proof we lay out and honestly consider the consequences of denying an honest reaction to our argument.

Regardless we should not let theiropinions sway our resolve unless they are willing to offer a convincing alternative course of action.

< email | 9/08/2002 03:00:00 AM | link