To invade or not to invade, that is the question
Sitting on the fence can be painful.
I have had to cut way back on my intake of right wing hate radio. And left wing mind numbed TV is out too. In fact there are not many entertainment venues left that don't drag me into a debate over the coming war. Ordinarily, I'd love to jump into the fray and cut loose with the Marty perspective. But this time, I don't have a dog in the fight.
First of all, the endless diatribe from the neo-conservative chorus was wearing thin last year. Today it has the effect of fingernails on a black board. While Sean Hannity and company weave arguments that are simplistic even by Rush Limbaugh standards, they make up for it by repeating them selves loudly. OK, we get it. You think we should bomb Saddam Hussein and can't see why every thinking human being has not reached the same conclusion.
On the hand, the loony left has dusted off the same old playbook and resorted to personal attacks on George W Bush. This may come as a shock, but those of us with a brain and enough skepticism to not dance to the war drums don't find an argument based on your personal opinion of one man compelling. Stop it. You look silly and petty and no one will take you seriously if you continue to act as if you recently graduated passing notes in study hall.
As for me, I just have not been able to take a side. On the negative side, I see more terrorism coming out of an attack on Iraq. Though this will generate new levels (and the old levels are pretty high) of hate mail, I can't shake the impression that the countries in the Middle East resemble those battered women you see on COPS. As soon as the officers pull the mullet wearing miscreant off of her, she starts begging them not to hurt him. As soon as Saddam was out of Kuwait, the population of the region wanted us gone. The sanctions against Iraq keep Saddam just weak enough for his neighbors not to fear him.
And as for the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I have not seen anything that is not heavily circumstantial. The fact that Colin Powel could not point out a more flagrant act of assistance than an Al-Qaeda lieutenant seeking medical care somewhere in Iraq speaks volumes.
Add to this the fact that Saddam has virtually no hope of actually launching an attack on the US and it's interests and I just have not been convicted that he is our number one security threat.
But that doesn't end the discussion. There are some compelling reasons to deal with Hussein.
The first is that while he cannot be directly linked to Al-Qaeda, he can be linked to other terrorist organizations. From paying the families of suicide bombers and training Palestinians in weapons and explosives Saddam is actively stirring the pot in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The escalation of weapons used by terror groups and their tendency to network with one another makes it likely that at some future time, Saddam's non-conventional weapons could work their way into the hands of a terrorist organization.
Second, the population of Iraq has been tortured by international sanctions brought about to end the 1991 Gulf War. While many groups blame the US and other countries on the UN Security Council for keeping the sanctions in place, it is Saddam Hussein alone that could end the sanctions tomorrow. I find it interesting that the peace activists want to be compassionate to the Iraqis that would be killed in a war, but have not been protesting Saddam's actions over the last 12 years that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of his own citizens.
In the end, I don't expect to be any safer or better liked around the world if Saddam assumes room temperature in a US invasion. I don't feel compelled to send my fellow citizens off to the Middle East to die while liberating the people of Iraq. But I guess ending this twelve-year standoff is reason enough for me not to be protesting in the street.