Yes. there is quite a bit of room in "my world" for that type of action. However- what is being discussed and proffered in this article is so much more than that. We are debating whether or not to wage war and invade a country- not "tweak" it through other more discreet means.
Ledeen: But the prudent strategy is actually more dangerous and thoroughly unrealistic. Moving step by step gives the surviving terror masters time to mount a counterattack--time they would use to develop the weapons of mass destruction that rightly concern us, and give urgency to our cause.
Sound like a lot more than "tweaking" to me.
Indeed it is, but is does not neccessarily require massive intervention thru conventional warfare. A clear demonstration of force and will, will send a clear message. Those who are in power understand the message and may or may not respond as we would like. Hussein is a megalomaniac. The extent to which his oil will purchase support remains to be seen. But a conquered Iraq will give a very strong message to our "allies" and enemies alike. What they do with the information will not be clear for some time. It's not a game for the faint hearted to be sure. The fact remains. A regime that sits upon oil reserves has decided to force the world to its knees. Some bow willingly and get what they want for a time. Some resist and earn the "World's" enmity. That means of course that most of the world would prefer to let a radical and vicious world view prevail in hopes that it will focus elsewhere. Ok. It will be us for a while, and then who is next? And if we don't deal with it, is there any hope at all?
regards