[edwin hubble]

"It's risky for Sadaam, but it's a sensable gamble. Worst case we leave him alone and he achieves deployments impossible under fire, particularly the scuds."


Actually, a pre-emptive strike by Iraq might be a gift to the US.

It would justify the war.
The initiation of hostilities would be on Saddam's head.
It would eliminate a lot of the hand-wringing.
And it would all be over very quickly.

[Kerberos]

"Actually, a pre-emptive strike by Iraq might be a gift to the US. "

I have been wondering for a few days if this is what Bush has been angling for.

[SJackson]

Actually, a pre-emptive strike by Iraq might be a gift to the US.

It would be. My thought was that Sadaam might be trying to force a tactical strike on the part of the US, ahead of an invasion, which I'd sure would earn him some brownie points in the UN. Worst case, if we don't act, he achieves troop movements which won't be possible under fire. IMO, deploying the scuds, if that's what he's doing, is particularly important, since he'll have a very limited window to move them once a full scale attack begins.

Given the diplomatic risks, we're losing there anyway, I think we should disrupt his movements. Assuming GWB is going to attack regardless of the UN, the long term judgement of his actions will be determined by what we find once we're there, and how successful we might be at "regieme change". Allowing tactical movements like this, if we're going ahead anyway, can only cost American lives.