Mr Spinkles
Mr
So, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Intelligence Council, U.N. inspectors and every intelligence agency but Baghdad inform you that Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing WMD, has a large amount of WMD, has missiles that violate the ranges agreed upon for the ceasefire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf War (that has been confirmed by the way), and he's shooting at our planes over the No-Fly-Zone on a daily basis. Here's some further reading on what the NIC has to say about our intel on Iraq: http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_wp_iraq_wmd.htm
As a President who has just witnessed terrorists kill 2,000 Americans in an act of violence forewarned by our under-appreciated intelligence agencies, what actions would you take to prevent a possible future catastrophe with Saddam Hussein? How can you prevent Saddam from, say, invading one of his neighbors, this time with nuclear or biological weapons with which to hold that country hostage? How can you discourage countries like Iran, Libya, and North Korea from pursuing similar strategies?
Here's what I would do: I would go to the U.N. and get inspections going again (why in the world did Clinton allow Saddam to kick the inspectors out in the first place?). I would be as stern in my public statements about Iraq as possible and move troops to reinforce Saudi Arabia so Saddam knows we actually mean it this time. If Saddam didn't start cooperating with weapons inspectors, I would take that as further evidence that he is using a covert system of Denial and Deception (or "D&D") just as he was in the 90's to hide his intentions and his capabilities. Basically he's stalling for time, as he has done for the past decade. I wouldn't let him drag out the process though, I'd try to keep the pressure on. I would send the Secretary of State to the U.N. to try to get another resolution passed by the Security Council, one that gave a specific deadline for Saddam to start fully cooperating with inspectors, after which a coalition mandated by the U.N. would use military force to remove him. If we flex our muscles enough, who knows? Maybe Saddam will start cooperating with inspectors and we can celebrate the diplomatic victory.
I cannot see any reason the countries of the U.N. Security Council would not vote for this (was it the 15th?) resolution...after all, their own intel agencies agreed with the CIA and the NIC's analyses of Iraq's WMD and nuclear programs. Alas prejudice, mistrust, economic and cultural barriers have divided the Western world down the Atlantic--France, Germany, Russia and China voted down this final U.N. resolution. To Saddam and other regimes with aspirations to acquire nuclear/biological weapons, this could have only been seen as confirmation that the U.N. has no real power to enforce its mandates. It would now be clear that the Western world will do anything to avoid an armed conflict--even allow rogue nations to develop WMD.
The large numbers of troops stationed on the border of Iraq cannot remain there indefinitely, as Saudi Arabia and other countries will not tolerate it, and the cost of maintaining those troops is enormous. Action must be taken, and there are two choices: either withdraw the troops, or invade Iraq.
If I witdraw the troops from Iraq's borders, Saddam will have won a clear victory not only for himself but for rogue nations everywhere who will see this as proof that America is a paper tiger. Countries like Libya, Iran, and North Korea would interpret this to mean that if they pursue WMD, America and the rest of the world will back down. If I invade, I have to invade as soon as possible, as the approaching summer will make chem/bio suits very hot and present serious tactical problems for our troops (sandstorms, etc). As President, I would at this time set my own ultimatum and assemble a coalition outside of the U.N. as quickly as possible. If I do not take a firm stance against dictators like Saddam, who will? Certainly not France, Russia, or Germany--that much is clear.
Notice that in the wake of Iraq, relations with other regimes have improved. Iran, Libya, and North Korea have taken positive steps and proved more willing to dismantle their WMD programs than before. This is because they know that crazy S.O.B. Mr Spinkles will oust them faster than you can say "Ayatollah" if it even appears that they are pursuing WMD. In effect, I've avoided armed conflict with several countries by using force on one (not to mention freed millions from an oppressive regime).
As a President who has just witnessed terrorists kill 2,000 Americans in an act of violence forewarned by our under-appreciated intelligence agencies, what actions would you take to prevent a possible future catastrophe with Saddam Hussein? How can you prevent Saddam from, say, invading one of his neighbors, this time with nuclear or biological weapons with which to hold that country hostage? How can you discourage countries like Iran, Libya, and North Korea from pursuing similar strategies?
Here's what I would do: I would go to the U.N. and get inspections going again (why in the world did Clinton allow Saddam to kick the inspectors out in the first place?). I would be as stern in my public statements about Iraq as possible and move troops to reinforce Saudi Arabia so Saddam knows we actually mean it this time. If Saddam didn't start cooperating with weapons inspectors, I would take that as further evidence that he is using a covert system of Denial and Deception (or "D&D") just as he was in the 90's to hide his intentions and his capabilities. Basically he's stalling for time, as he has done for the past decade. I wouldn't let him drag out the process though, I'd try to keep the pressure on. I would send the Secretary of State to the U.N. to try to get another resolution passed by the Security Council, one that gave a specific deadline for Saddam to start fully cooperating with inspectors, after which a coalition mandated by the U.N. would use military force to remove him. If we flex our muscles enough, who knows? Maybe Saddam will start cooperating with inspectors and we can celebrate the diplomatic victory.
I cannot see any reason the countries of the U.N. Security Council would not vote for this (was it the 15th?) resolution...after all, their own intel agencies agreed with the CIA and the NIC's analyses of Iraq's WMD and nuclear programs. Alas prejudice, mistrust, economic and cultural barriers have divided the Western world down the Atlantic--France, Germany, Russia and China voted down this final U.N. resolution. To Saddam and other regimes with aspirations to acquire nuclear/biological weapons, this could have only been seen as confirmation that the U.N. has no real power to enforce its mandates. It would now be clear that the Western world will do anything to avoid an armed conflict--even allow rogue nations to develop WMD.
The large numbers of troops stationed on the border of Iraq cannot remain there indefinitely, as Saudi Arabia and other countries will not tolerate it, and the cost of maintaining those troops is enormous. Action must be taken, and there are two choices: either withdraw the troops, or invade Iraq.
If I witdraw the troops from Iraq's borders, Saddam will have won a clear victory not only for himself but for rogue nations everywhere who will see this as proof that America is a paper tiger. Countries like Libya, Iran, and North Korea would interpret this to mean that if they pursue WMD, America and the rest of the world will back down. If I invade, I have to invade as soon as possible, as the approaching summer will make chem/bio suits very hot and present serious tactical problems for our troops (sandstorms, etc). As President, I would at this time set my own ultimatum and assemble a coalition outside of the U.N. as quickly as possible. If I do not take a firm stance against dictators like Saddam, who will? Certainly not France, Russia, or Germany--that much is clear.
Notice that in the wake of Iraq, relations with other regimes have improved. Iran, Libya, and North Korea have taken positive steps and proved more willing to dismantle their WMD programs than before. This is because they know that crazy S.O.B. Mr Spinkles will oust them faster than you can say "Ayatollah" if it even appears that they are pursuing WMD. In effect, I've avoided armed conflict with several countries by using force on one (not to mention freed millions from an oppressive regime).
