Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to Re: weak argument

"As long as Saddam can be deterred and contained"
Tom Brosz — (archived)

And when he can no longer be deterred and contained? What then? I can imagine a number of incidents that would indicate that Saddam is no longer being "deterred and contained," especially once he is left alone again to develop his weaponry. Another invasion of a neighboring country. An attack on Israel with weapons of mass destruction. A totalitarian dictator might be easily willing to risk nuclear retaliation from Israel if he believes he is sufficiently sheltered, and to hell with the Iraqi people. How much punishment can a civilized country like Israel take without collapsing? And of course, becoming a source for funding and equipment for terrorists, which he is doing now, especially in the Kurdish areas.

It is asinine in the modern world to believe in pure isolationism, although it's a popular theme with the left, some conservatives, and many libertarians. Stick to our own borders and defenses, goes the theory, and all will be well. This was considered wise by our Founding Fathers, but they lived in a much larger world where you could easily tell the rest of the planet to go to hell and not lose much by it. As the U.S. grew older, this got a lot harder.

The United States military is the only thing that prevented Saddam from being the ruler of most of the Arabian peninsula and its resources today, just like the U.S. military has been the only thing keeping North Korea from eating South Korea, China from eating Taiwan, and not that long ago, the Soviet Union from eating Europe. I think a few of us have mentioned Hitler's territorial ambitions. He actually did eat Europe, and we had to make him cough it up.

"Deterred and contained" works in some cases. You saw over the past half century what it cost us to "deter and contain" the Soviet Union, in money and manpower. There was never an opportunity to nip that in the bud. We have such an opportunity here.

And if you think a permanent U.S. military presence based throughout the Arabian peninsula, which would be the minimum required to "deter and contain" Saddam, would make the Arabs any happier than they are now, you are probably mistaken.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)