It is abundantly clear that the "sanction and inspect, except when they tell us not to inspect" approach was horribly flawed. In that respect, our foreign policy was indeed misguided. Our media and State Department have done a poor job, too, of pointing out that the 500,000 or 5 million or 50 million dead starved Iraqi babies could well have been fed had Saddam directed his governments' efforts to providing for the needs of the governed, rather than providing shiny palaces for Saddam and his family, and concocting toxins to use on Israel and America.
However, I think that to fret about the "whole world" sympathizing with Iraq is a facile dodge. The whole world does not sympathize with Iraq. The sanctions are United Nations sanctions, for what that's worth. As for fearing that taking out Iraq now might "explode the seething mass of arab anti-western hate", it seems to me that it already exploded on September 11th. Therefore, it is no counter-argument to taking on Iraq's Ba'ath party and deposing them.
2. If Iraq is the source of Anthrax attack, get ready for a terrorist counter attack involving millions of pieces of mail. In short, Iraq has the capacity to destroy the entire American mail and courier service. This will catastrophically cripple the US ecomony.
I respectfully disagree. If they had the capacity to do so, they would have done so already. They are not playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules here, waiting for the ref to count while we stagger back to our feet. If they could have done a one-two punch, they already would have. I respect our enemies, but let's not give them more credit than they deserve. Remember the "battle-hardened" army that Iraq fielded in 1991? We should not be impressed by any Iraqi threats of vengance.
3. Turkey and Iran are not going to happily stand by as we dismember Iraq and open the possibility of a greater Kurdistan. The balance of friend and foe will be completely redrawn if we take down Iraq unilaterally, and there is no planning for how things will look afterwards.
Iran spent most of the 1980's trying to dismember Iraq, as I recall. The Turks would likely welcome a chance to remove a threatening presence to their south, and, as a member state of NATO, have already cast their lot with us. A democratic (swiss canton, british parliament, whatever) Iraq does not pose a threat of 'greater kurdistan' ... and even if it does, that's a question for afterwards, akin to "But what about Austro-Hungary? What about the Ottoman Empire?" and so forth. Planning for things afterwards can wait until afterwards. We didn't shirk from the Cold War just because the State Department had no master plan for what to do in the event the Soviet Union collapsed. I, for one, am not afraid of victory. The victor gets to set the terms. First we attain Iraq's unconditional surrender. Then we can sort out what to do next.
As for "The balance of friend and foe will be completely redrawn if we take down Iraq unilaterally" ... you say that like it's a bad thing. The whole point of the article, it seems to me, is that taking down Iraq will redraw the map, to our advantage. Don't discount the persuasive power of a victorious American army encamped around the Tigris and Euphrates. That would, indeed, cause Iran, Arabia (with or without the House of Saud), and Syria to become far more interested in seeing the American point of view. I, for one, think that's exactly what we want from this war. The example of Iraq, it's nation occupied, it's tyrannical rulers slain or in chains, would cause every tyrant in the neighborhood to re-examine their priorities.
4. The US military simply cannot wage another Gulf war. Clinton cut the machinery in half, the Saudis will not give us the staging ground, and airpower alone will only trigger more waves of fanatical Arab hate. Picture of dead babies and that sort of thing. Plus, the new chinese and czech radar and SAMs have yet to be unsheathed. Remember we lost a F-117 to the Serbs, and they are Saddam's friends.
The US military simply cannot wage another Gulf war ... TODAY. Our martial history has been routine:
We will TAKE the Saudi staging grounds, if need be. The House of Saud is in a very precarious position. Fretting about new military hardware seems to miss the point. We've got new weapons, too, and our old one's aren't too shabby.
Honestly, your post (well, responding to it) has if anything moved me even further towards thinking we need to take out Iraq, sooner rather than later. We could come up with many arguments for not taking on Iraq now ... but as time passes, the Iraqis will only become more dangerous to us.
If Jordan were now to provide good intel and clear support for the 'solution' in Iraq, King Abdallah could be given Medina and Mecca and the House of Saud and Wahabbism would be done for.