[dpwiener]

I've also had similar thoughts. Among the potential problems with an Iraqi invasion are:

(1) Saddam retaliates against Israel and against U.S. military forces with chemical/biological/radiological weapons, because he figures he's a dead man and has nothing to lose;

2) Other Arab countries shut off oil shipments and encourage a new wave of suicide attacks on Israel;

3) World opinion lines up behind Iraq and actively opposes the U.S. (e.g., trade disruptions);

4) Americans around the world are targeted by terrorists (presuming they lack the capability to again attack us in our homeland);

(5) Bush gives up the element of tactical surprise by requesting Congressional authorization or a Declaration of War, or else is heavily criticized at home for failing to do so.

Now none of the above problems are insurmountable, and indeed some are rather unlikely. But if there is no distinct start to the war, but it just slowly increases in intensity, then there is no occasion for any of the above to happen. Of greatest importance is that Saddam might refrain from using WMDs, because he couldn't be sure of his fate and because it would be much harder to rationalize to world opinion (and would certainly precipitate an all-out military offensive by the U.S.).

[Ranger]

I like the analysis overall. I would add that the WMD as far as Israel is concerned boil down to 16 Scub-B's, some possible suicide pilots, drones and bribed Palestinians.

Its much more likely that WMD will be used against rebel populations and US force bases in northern and southern Iraq where the world outcry will be less and the range of delivery vehicles greater.

Last, the key is the oil and its cash flow. If we cut it off or control it, then his Russian and French apologists shut up and get in line. Even the most loyal mercenary thugs know when their isn't another paycheck. They'll hang his beaten and bloody body from a lamp post for an appropriate cash reward and amnesty.