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.
First, I disagree with the entire foundation of your analysis. Saddam does not have us by the balls. We have him by the balls, and we intend to kill him.
You are proceeding from the assumption that Saddam has secreted in smallpox or anthrax distributors into the United States and that that is Saddam's deterrent. I assert that many of the steps that have been taken have been enough to counter Saddam's possible "deterrent". The smallpox stocks have been built up and cipro is all over the place.
Here's how I know that you are wrong.
Bush has drawn the sword. The present diplomatic crisis is a result of France and Germany trying to assert power within the EU. It is a distraction, but not enough of one to derail the military campaign. When you draw the sword, as Bush has done, you must use it. Otherwise, the world returns to the environment as it was after the fall of Saigon.
One does not key up the heavy divisions, the 101st Air Assault, the Air Force, five carrier battle groups, and force a bunch of friends (Blair, the Spanish, the Israelis, the Italians, the Turks, the Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the government of Qatar) out on a limb only to saw it off and say, "Sorry fellas. We didn't mean it..."
That's not the way the world works. Bush made his decision to go in late last year, if not earlier. The entire diplomatic dance is simply noise, no more, no less.
As to Russia, Bush isn't mad at Putin because Putin is a neutral, with no claim of fidelity to the United States. He is doing a fine job of positioning Russia so that it might be an "honest broker" in the wake of the invasion, and more trusted by the oil states of the Arab League. Bush and his people understand that, and know that Russia will be a player in the future.
Be Seeing You,
Chris