Replies

The problem that this brings up is that Iraq (or anybody else with anthrax) will have a strong incentive to use it before their WMD is essentially neutralized. There's a very unstable period while the civil defenses are being developed and installed.

And guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about that. That's just a fixed, operational constraint, the real-world consequence of Clinton's fecklessness and Annan's duplicity. We can attack now and face the near-certainty of a massive retaliation against which we have no defense, or we can string things out until we have some way to blunt the threat. Guess which option we're going to take.

[The problem that this brings up is that Iraq (or anybody else with anthrax) will have a strong incentive to use it before their WMD is essentially neutralized. There's a very unstable period while the civil defenses are being developed and installed.]

And guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about that.

Yep, that's the way it is. So we shouldn't be surprised at further covert attacks, presumably by proxy for Iraq, designed to be very damaging but still below the level that would provoke a strategic response. After all, Iraq would figure that there's nothing we can do about it that isn't in the works anyway, plus they have a strong incentive to use their bioweapons before our civil defense is in place.

We can attack now and face the near-certainty of a massive retaliation against which we have no defense, or we can string things out until we have some way to blunt the threat. Guess which option we're going to take.

It occurs to me that the delay not only gives us time to prepare, but may also be the best way to prevent a significant terrorist attack.

UN logic is that our attacking Iraq will prevoke terrorist attacks. Thus, Saddam and his agents can't afford to attack us first because such action would prove that Bush and Powell right and the UN and the Axis of Weasles are wrong. So the backchannels at the UN that know for a fact that Iraq has WMD must be pleading with Saddam to not use them or else the UN will be relegated to the ashheap of history. So as long as we have the full force and might of the United States military pointed at Baghdad with the hammer cocked, it is in Saddam's interest to keep the "cut outs" and sleeper cells parked in the garage.

The question then becomes, how long can we keep the troops (and the public) at this ready state?

A game of chicken of global proportions. Only, I think we have the upper hand. If Saddam is kept in check until we are ready, then all goes as planned. If Saddam activates the sleeper cells, lots of people die, but we send in the troops, remove Saddam and expose the UN as worthless.

Remind me to never play poker with G.W. Bush.