We know indisputably that he was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. If he had any direct involvement with 9/11 is not material. He has been;
1. Violating the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement.
2. Continuing his NBC development.
3. Aiding other terrorist organizations aside from Al Qaeda that have attacked both US interests directly as well as our allies.
4. If he does not have NBC delivery capabilities now, he surely will in the near further and one would be a nuts to think that he would be reluctant to use them himself or to transfer them to those who would quickly use them against us or our allies.
The time is right to take him out for several reasons.
1. In 1991, there was no viable replacement for a Sunni dominated Iraq. The opposition then were the marsh Arabs (Shiites) who would have quickly turned Iraq into a Islamic Republic or a province of radical Shiite Iran. Or the Kurds in the North who would have not only degenerated into inter-tribal civil war not so different than Afghanistan, but also destroyed our relationship with Turkey, our only predictable ally in the Moslem world. Now, there is a viable, well funded and highly organized Sunni opposition who can replace Saddam and hold Iraq together as a secular republic with a pro-Western orientation. Bush I was right to pull back from toppling Saddam via either of the opposition groups that existed in 1991. The situation is very different today.
2. Saddam is the lynch pin that holds the official anti-Westernism of the Mid East together. The Islamic radicals of Iran are in trouble and seeing Iraq go to a pro-Western secular republic will be the straw that broke the Ayatollahs back. The pro-Western majority of Iran will welcome Saddams demise. Socialist Syria will have a "epiphany" and decide that they are really pro-Western too. The Saudis and other "moderate" Arabs will understand that they can no longer play "good" cop vs Saddams "bad" cop and be much easier to deal with. Ousting Saddam has no downside now whereas 10 years ago it may not have been the smartest thing to do in terms of long term commitment of US forces for occupation. It could well have been disastrous in terms of further radicalizing the mid-East. Contrary to the impression we get from the popular media, in the year 2002, there are many millions of people on the "Arab street" who have had more than their fill of radical Islam and anti-Americanism. They would much rather be modern and prosperous and out from under the heels of tin-pot dictators and religious zealots. Showing that we have the resolve to arrange a face to face between Saddam and Allah is the key to giving those people a chance.
We need a good thread on this.
The time is right to take him out for several reasons.
The time may be right in a sense, but is it worth the cost?
Nobody would like to see him trying to touch the ground with his tip-tip-tippy-toes while dangling from a noose more than I would. I just don't know if the geo-political gains are worth the risk/expenditure. He's 66 years old. He's not going to be there forever. He's not likely to give up WMD's to people who can hurt us -- he knows we can hurt him worse.
I tend to think taking him out is just part of the war on terrorism.
But I think the record amply supports saying that he would have been content to stay at home and torture his own people had we not stoked up his wrath by humilitating him on Desert Storm.
The teetering of the Iranian clerics is a BIG story over there now. That makes it a good time to strike, no doubt about it -- if striking is the right thing to do.
Walt