At the time (right after September 11), we weren't ready to attack a state sponsor of anthrax. Right now I believe we are. On what do you base your belief that we are now prepared to attack a state sponsor of anthrax? I'm curious, because your posts are always well thought out. Do you mean that we are ready to prevent an anthrax attack, that we can minimize the damage of an anthrax attack, or that we are ready to absorb the potential casualties of a successful anthrax attack?
I am simply using logic. Anthrax, as we have seen, is treatable if diagnosed properly. An attack on a city would cost some lives, but not the millions that an unrecognized epidemic would. Since 9/11, we have stockpiled antibiotics and vaccines, prepared emergency plans for major cities, educated health care workers on symptoms,sent warnings to crop-dusters and small airports, and spent a great amount of time rounding up suspected terrorists. There is still a risk, but not the risk we faced right after 9/11.
Were we unable to assume the risk, we would not have 300,000 men deployed in the Persian Gulf area. That is a huge cost in money, as well as a disruption of families and loss of life in training and transport. This was not done for a bluff.