I have tacked this question to the wall in several posts, and watched as they slowly drifted off the page and into oblivion unanswered.

Does anyone have a detailed alternative to military action that does not leave Saddam in control of Iraq and its hidden weapons programs in perpetuity?

Anticipating a few responses:

"Inspections:"

It has become obvious that Saddam is not interested in cooperating with the inspection process. How many "new discoveries" that were not on the earlier required list of weapons have showed up? Given a PROVEN HISTORY of massive concealed weapons programs, many unearthed after the Gulf War, what are we to take as proof that no such programs are in place in an area the size of California? Particularly biological?

How many people would you need to "inspect" California for a lab that could fit in a large room?

Doesn't the fact that Saddam has to threaten scientists with death indicate the slight possiblity that he might be trying to conceal information?

"Containment:"

The only way to "contain" or "deter" someone is by threat of force, either economic or military. Economic sanctions are a proven utter failure. Whatever money does get into Iraq builds palaces and weapons. The sanctions, thanks to Saddam, cost many lives. Far more than the war will take.

As for military threats, how is that to be accomplished? We're doing that now, almost to the point of invasion. Do you think we are getting any real cooperation? Do you believe Saddam is doing ANYTHING real on his side to avoid war? Only if you are as gullible as Blix.

And deterrence only works if there is a clear line to a fixed government, and that government is at least somewhat rational. Demonstrably, Al Quaeda wasn't stopped by the thought that we might retaliate. I have already posted quotes from radical Mideastern leaders who say they are perfectly willing to absorb a nuclear retaliation if it means their enemy is destroyed.

"Diplomacy:"

Get real. What can you offer Saddam that he needs? What can you threaten him with when he knows you will never follow through?

What we are doing now is not a sudden thing. It is the end result of over a decade of screwing around with Iraq and trying over and over again all the lame "solutions" that the opposition is still harping on.

I admit my original question at the beginning of this post was slightly loaded.

It may be that many people are perfectly happy leaving Saddam in total control of Iraq. The status quo. And then hope for the best in the next 20 years (One assumes that the Iraqi people are irrelevant in this).

Don't rock the boat. There are worse philosophies, when you can't think a problem through.

I suppose this is an acceptable answer (although I disagree), and a lot less hypocritical than those anti-war types who nevertheless insist they want Saddam out of there.