As the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan winds down, should Iraq become
"phase two" in the war against global terrorism? Bush warns that Saddam
Hussein's arsenal of mass destruction and his fanatic hatred of the United States
make him a paramount threat. Others counsel for continued diplomacy and the
return of U.N. weapons inspectors, arguing that an attack on Iraq would
destabilize the Arab world. To support their cases, both sides deploy cherished
assumptions about everything from Saddam Hussein's sanity to the explosive
volatility of the "Arab Street." But a skeptical look at the sound bites suggests that
the greatest risk of attacking Iraq may not be a vengeful Saddam or a
destabilized Middle East but the unraveling of the global coalition against
terrorism.
Some background on The US/Iraq situation:
The first Bush administration should have solved the problem of Saddam
when it had the chance. Everyone would be better off today if the U.S.
English: Former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein,...
April Glaspie shakes hands with Saddam Hussein
Carlos Cardoen meets with Iraqi Leader Saddam Huss...military
had marched into Baghdad and ousted Saddam. But the first Bush
administration's decision to stand down in February 1991 made some sense at
the time. Some of the coalition consisted of Arab country's and they most likely
wouldn't have supported in a US led invasion to topple an Arab nation as well as
the notion that a humiliating defeat would cause a coup de tae by Saddam's
generals. Another mistake was to allow Iraq to use its own helicopters to move
around its leaders and allow them gunships to put down Shiite and Kurd
uprisings.(the Shiite and Kurds are the reason for northern and southern no fly
zones preventing Iraq from attacking them)The reason for this was they feared
the break up of Iraq would destabilize the region. However Saddam didn't unite
Iraq and become in power Iraq was already established when he came...