Question Time

The President who reacted to Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate a former President by firing off a few cruise missiles had this to say about Iraq:

He told people the real concern in Iraq was Hussein's possible use of stockpiled chemical and biological weapons.

The former president reminded the audience of Hussein's propensity to use the weapons in the past, citing an attack on the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq war.

"He has maximum incentive not to use this stuff," Clinton said. "If we go, he has maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going to lose."

I still do not understand this argument. Part of the "incentive" Saddam has not to "use this stuff" is the fact that the U.S. maintains a no-fly zone in Kurdish parts of the country. But that's an ongoing territorial violation, and one that Saddam has made clear he doesn't like one bit. So if that isn't provocation enough for him to "use this stuff," would a larger-scale operation designed to topple his government necessarily be any more provocative than the ongoing violation of Iraqi sovereignty?

I would like to see some consistency from the crowd who contends the U.S. ought not take military action against Iraq and thereby provoke Saddam to "use this stuff." If that's the case, those same people should be arguing to end the no-fly zones and entirely remove any threat of provocation.

And if they respond that we CAN'T leave for fear of Saddam attacking the Kurds, then I want to know this: what is their strategy to get us OUT of this quagmire (I would think roughly a decade-long infringement on a nation's sovereignty is a quagmire if anything is, right)? And if the response is we MUST stay to protect the Kurds, then my followup is: why not finish the job by forcing a regime change?

I think those are good questions. I'd like to see Tom Daschle (who voted against the war in Iraq the first time) answer them.

[Posted at 21:15 CST on 09/05/02] [Link]