Game Over
Saddam Hussein has had more lives than a teenage
Nintendo addict playing the Legend of Zelda. But
now, as President Bush said yesterday, "the game is
over." Indeed, if I can be allowed to mix
metaphors, the kettle has started shaking and might
boil over at any moment.
I won't rehash the momentous developments of the
past couple of days—Secretary Powell's address
to the U.N. Security Council, the reaction and
analysis of that address, still more military
deployments—but things appear to be very close
to a point of no return. Media coverage is nearing
a pre-Gulf War intensity. Military assets deployed
in the Gulf region have also neared (if not
reached) Gulf War levels. Turkey is poised to grant
the U.S. permission to use its military bases in a
war against Iraq. This weekend's trip to Baghdad
will almost certainly be the last for U.N.
inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.
The other night, commentator Bill O'Reilly
predicted that Saddam Hussein won't be in power six
weeks from now. I have to say I agree with him.
We'll probably be at war with Iraq before the end
of the month, and I doubt it'll last much longer
than it did in 1991. Unfortunately, it might be
more costly this time.
Denying the existence of chemical and biological
weapons for the last 12 years has given Hussein
plenty of time to continue their development. While
he has repeated his denials over and over,
intelligence released yesterday asserted that he
recently authorized his field commanders to use
chemical weapons in any impending conflict that may
erupt in the near future. While it's true we
prepared for chemical and biological attack during
the Gulf War 12 years ago, the use of such weapons
somehow seems much more likely in a post-9/11
world. I hope I'm wrong.
My biggest concern all along with regard to a
war against Iraq has been the possibility (or the
likelihood) that such a conflict would
greatly increase—not decrease—the chance
of terrorist acts against the U.S. at home and
abroad. Many Muslims and other Middle Eastern
peoples seem to already have an antagonistic view
of the U.S. and its perceived hegemony. If we take
the bold step of invading Iraq and removing Hussein
from power, we'll only reinforce that perception of
domination.
While I may agree with many of the reasons for
invading Iraq, such agreement does little to allay
these concerns. In fact, my fears were confirmed
yesterday when the State Department issued a
worldwide warning, stating that "U.S. citizens and
interests are at a heightened risk of terrorist
attacks." In the long run, removing Saddam Hussein
from power would probably reduce the overall risk
of terrorism, but it could get pretty ugly before
then.
Development note: I've
noticed that this site doesn't look like it should
in Netscape Navigator. Rather than waste time
jury-rigging it to look right in a
soon-to-be-obsolete browser, I'll just add the
cliché "This site best viewed with Internet
Explorer."
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
Daily Chuckle:
The early bird may get the worm, but
the second mouse gets the cheese.
What is "The Daily Strick"?
I have long called
myself a writer, but too often I don't do
what a writer must do daily: write. So
you, dear reader, are the beneficiary of
my resolution to make a positive change in
at least one area of my life. Every single
day of this new year, I will write
something, anything, and post it here. It
is my intention to use this daily exercise
to jump-start my too-long-dormant creative
energies, and perhaps generate some
worthwhile material this year. Hopefully
you will find at least an occasional
amusement or insight in my daily
musings.
Today's
Column
Send
a Comment
Previously...
2/6:
The
Eagle Never Landed
2/5:
Pope:
Potter No Problem
2/4:
Time
for Another Rewrite
2/3:
A
Matter of Opinions
2/2:
Suicidal
Bravado
2/1:
Godspeed,
Columbia
Archive: JANUARY
2003
Like what you've
read?
Find more good reading on
(and support future Daily Stricks!)
|
|
