The Washington Post gets close, but no cigar
The Post is my local paper, and over the years has been consistently liberal-to-left wing. But these are serious minded people, mostly without the cant and rant one finds in a certain Gotham paper whose name will not be mentioned. Today they almost broke through the liberal haze.
The lead editorial, The Inspection Trap gives all the correct reasons why this latest kabuki step by Iraq will not result in the desired outcome. The writer(s) also correctly labeled those, such as Russia and Germany, who endorsed Saddam's ploy, as the appeasers that they are.
The editorial even concludes with the point, so obvious yet so muddled in the international debate, that the end objective is to disarm Iraq, not to get an inspection regime in place. [Memo to the pro-Saddam morons who disrupted SECDEF's hearing on the Hill today -- having inspections is only a means to an end, not the end. They've been tried from 1991-98, when ol' Saddam sent the inspectors packing, so that didn't work.] So let's move on to the next logical step of regime change by force.
So what's not to like? Here it is, from the editorial:
The last 11 years of failed inspections and at least 10 strongly-worded UN resolutions should convince anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that "it will certainly NOT work". And, the viable alternatives are not war or inspections, they are war sooner or war later.
Sooner is better; why give Saddam more free time to improve his weapon delivery systems? Once we have the appropriate forces in play, let's go in with whoever chooses to stand by our side. Those who choose not to join will declare by their choice that they prefer evil to good; cancer to quick surgery to cure it.
The Post is my local paper, and over the years has been consistently liberal-to-left wing. But these are serious minded people, mostly without the cant and rant one finds in a certain Gotham paper whose name will not be mentioned. Today they almost broke through the liberal haze.
The lead editorial, The Inspection Trap gives all the correct reasons why this latest kabuki step by Iraq will not result in the desired outcome. The writer(s) also correctly labeled those, such as Russia and Germany, who endorsed Saddam's ploy, as the appeasers that they are.
The editorial even concludes with the point, so obvious yet so muddled in the international debate, that the end objective is to disarm Iraq, not to get an inspection regime in place. [Memo to the pro-Saddam morons who disrupted SECDEF's hearing on the Hill today -- having inspections is only a means to an end, not the end. They've been tried from 1991-98, when ol' Saddam sent the inspectors packing, so that didn't work.] So let's move on to the next logical step of regime change by force.
So what's not to like? Here it is, from the editorial:
Though it almost certainly won't work, devoting several weeks or months to a last attempt at the peaceful implementation of the Security Council's resolutions is an intrinsically valuable step if the alternative is a war that could cost many thousands of lives. (Italics added)
The last 11 years of failed inspections and at least 10 strongly-worded UN resolutions should convince anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that "it will certainly NOT work". And, the viable alternatives are not war or inspections, they are war sooner or war later.
Sooner is better; why give Saddam more free time to improve his weapon delivery systems? Once we have the appropriate forces in play, let's go in with whoever chooses to stand by our side. Those who choose not to join will declare by their choice that they prefer evil to good; cancer to quick surgery to cure it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home