Al Gore, but the Electorial College design saved us.
And I have to admit, you have been correct so far in your prediction of no full scale military action against Saddam. However, the troops are assembling and every theory is correct until eventually proven incorrect. Do you think troops will be sent without at least some of Iraq's anthrax being nullified ? Or are we waiting for proper conditioning, proper drug stockpiling and proper innoculating ?
It is a delicate question. I do not believe we will be confronting Saddam head-on any time soon. There are things we could do militarily that would leave him with something to play for. For example, we could relatively easily dismantle Iraq, seizing the territory under the North and South No-Fly zones. That would still leave the central strip of the country, which includes Baghdad, as a rump for Saddam to play for. If and when we move, I'm convinced that the strategy will be "outside-in," as in Afghanistan, whatever propagandistic leaks to the contrary you might read. But I still think it's most likely that the current round of brinksmanship will end with some kind of elevated inspections regime rather than an invasion. That may even be secretly coordinated with France, Germany and Russia. I find it especially intersting that Russia seems to be on board with France and Germany. It's true that Russia is a traditional ally of Iraq, and that all these countries have every reason to be afraid of Iraq's WMD. But I haven't seen any anger at Putin from Bush. That suggests to me that a lot of what is going on between the US and its erratic allies is theater. The stakes are very high here. The United States cannot afford to look weak even if, in the current situation, Saddam has us by the balls. We will go to some lengths to create the impression that it is Bush who is the "tough cop" here, even if the desired end result is gradually increased isolation of Iraq, on a timescale commensurate with our capability to build up our civil defnses against the threat he presents.