Iraqi Roulette This would be far more fun to watch if there weren't thousands of lives at stake. Politics, between states, at least, is a game, oftentimes bloody, but mostly strategic. I ask you this: If you were a small and not generally liked country that was facing certain anihalation by the world's only superpower and the only hope you had of any survival at all was to gain international support, what would you do? Why, allow the U.N. inspectors back in, unconditionally, of course. If you have to, scrap your weapons of mass destruction program too. After all, what good will they do you if you have no country to fight for? Obvious, no? Then why didn't the Whte House anticipate this? What will happen now is that Iraq will come away with a clean bill of health,and even if Saddam constructs a Ptokemkin village, with no real change behind it, it will be good enough for the U.N. Then, the U.S. will have no choice but to act alone. By alone, of course, I mean with Britain at our side. I really am begining to wonder what Dubya promised Blair; his bust added to Mt. Rushmore? All the bangers and mash he wants till he pukes? Who knows why the British do anything, really? So the U.S will act alone, after the U.N. says that there are no weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq, and of course we'll be successful (...eventually) in routing out Saddam, but what next? As far as Iraq goes, we'll be morally obligated to put the country back together again and that will take a long time. An article in the Atlantic called 'The 51st State' covers this topic thoroughly. The far greater danger lies in our increasingly imperialistic swagger. To Americans, it seems like we're doing the right thing, going in and protecting lives. To Russia, China and especially Europe, we look like kingmakers. It's basic politics that kings do not kill kings. It's bad busines and we even had a law against it in the U.S., until the USA Patriot Act came along. Why is this such a bad idea? Because if one government says it can dictate what kind of government another soveriegn state may have through the use of force it sets a precedent that may bite us, or our allies badly down the road.. It justifies Yasser Arafat and Palestinian bombings, it justifies the IRA, it justifies the Basque Sepratists, and the list keeps going. The White House should not stoop to using the tools of terrorism to prevent terrorism. The White House has an obligation to capture the leaders of Al Qaeda, including Osama Bin Laden. The White House has an obligation to spur the investigation and prosecution of America's corporate criminals. The White has an obligation to implement a strategy to revive our ailing economy, to restore the mult-billion dollar budget surplus it inherited from the previous administration, or at least wipe out the multi-billion dollar deficit this administration has brought upon the American democratic apparatus. In short, The White House has an obligation to the people of America. It had better start living up to it. Note: Blogger.com is not posting my blogs for some unknown reason. Hopefully, when you read this, it will still be timely, but I'm open to hearing about any other blogging alternatives.

posted by Japhy at 9/16/2002 10:07:00 PM || #