Re: *** Most Americans favor bombing Iraq - poll

Robert S. Thau (
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:12:48 -0500 (EST)

Ron Resnick writes:
> I would generally agree with Robert's analysis, with one notable
> exception:
> Robert S. Thau wrote:
> > Iraq, in particular, isn't currently threatening anybody;
> > the weapons surveillance regime would have to go away for quite some
> > time for Iraq to be able to pose a threat, and as I've mentioned
> > before, no one is talking about removing the inspectors, just about
> > easing the sanctions.
> Iraq has removed inspectors. Unless that is changed, the facts
> on the ground right now are that Iraq is not being properly
> inspected for compliance. All the talk isn't changing those facts.
> As to their threat analysis, maybe I'm just a little too close
> for comfort right now to take that risk.
> They still have operational Scuds-
> no one knows how many. The are also very likely to have Anthrax and
> other nasties.

Belatedly agreed. Once again, this seems to be a case where I need a
decent editor --- the assertion that "Iraq isn't currently threatening
anybody" is clearly wrong. What I meant to argue is that Iraq isn't
currently posing a threat to any of its neighbors' territorial
integrity; for that to happen, I expect the no-fly zones would have to
come off, and they'd probably have to replenish their army's stores as
well (remembering what happened to their undersupplied soldiers the
last time they tried to fight a war).

However, they still probably have some weapons of mass destruction
salted away. Those aren't a threat either, though --- not to the
Saudis, that is. Use of those weapons against another Arab population
would instantly forfeit him all the Arab sympathy which he's currently
using and banking on. Saddam didn't stay in power by making that kind
of mistake terribly often (though when he does, as I'm sure we recall,
it's a doozy). However, they certainly are a threat to non-Arabs in
the neighborhood --- point to Ron.