January 15, 2003
U FRAIDIS?:
Saddam agrees to send top aide to discuss possible exile (WORLD TRIBUNE.COM, January 14, 2003)Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has for the first time signaled openness to an Arab plan for his exile in an effort to prevent a U.S.-led war against Iraq.Arab diplomatic sources said Saddam has agreed to send a senior aide to discuss "personal issues." The sources said the aide could arrive in Cairo over the weekend for talks on a plan to organize asylum in a Middle East country. [...]
The sources said Saddam has not accepted the Arab plan, promoted by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. But they said the Iraqi president has agreed to explore the prospect that he, his family and aides would find safe haven in an Arab capital along with Western guarantees that he would not be prosecuted by any foreign government or international court.
We're as hawkish as anyone, but if you can get regime change without a war it's all to the good. Then it's on to Pyongyang and Damascus. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 15, 2003 4:22 PM
Beware the Wld Trib, but they've scooped some stories before and were proved right. I'd agree that if we can do the job without firing a shot it would be to everyone's best interests. Some Chinese feller said the same thing several thousand years ago.
Posted by: Tom Roberts at January 15, 2003 6:19 PMI would rather not have war and I would rather not see people die.
The question to ask is what comes next after Saddam though, if he
volunteers exile like this? Another 'strong man'? A Ba'athist deputy?
More of the same? I don't want another 'sonofabitch' in power in
Baghdad, even if he was 'our sonofabitch', to paraphrase a past US
president.
If this leads to real change however, particularly towards a more
enlightened and democratic state, then I am all for it.
I'm not so sure. How do you know any of the bloodless scenarios won't be staged, with Saddam pulling the strings from "exile?"
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at January 15, 2003 9:31 PMI'm not so sure, remember Germany in the 1920s, in the aftermath of WW
1; with the Socialist, Communist, Freikorps & co
I doubt you are as hawkish as me. But you
might be more hawkish that Bush II.
Patrick:
> I'm not so sure. How
> do you know any of
> the bloodless
> scenarios won't be
> staged, with Saddam
> pulling the strings
> from "exile?"
Why would the US military governer listen to him? :=)
Seriously, if that's not the scenario, then it doesn't really qualify as regime change
, does it?
alastair - what comes next - we enforce the UN resolutions with a vigorous inspection process and out-of-the-country interviews on the successor government - shorn of weapons, they seek international aid and an end to sanctions on oil, and to get it they agree to a transition to democracy and a market economy.
Posted by: pj at January 16, 2003 6:46 AMHarry:
I think we should just get it over with and take out the communist regimes in Cuba, N. Korea, and China and I'd be comfortable nuking the Chinese, N. Korean and Pakistani nuclear sites.
No, you're not more hawkish than me.
Although I can think of several steps I'd
take before launching missiles.
For example, ending all commercial relations
with China, which would precipitate a crisis
for Peking.
Hold on boys. Get Saddam out however and move our troops in for a benign stabilization as we prepare to cleanse Syria of their terrorist training camps in Syria and Lebanon, settling an old score there. Pull our forces in Korea back to Guam and move two carrier groups from the Med. to the Sea of Japan. Include two F.M.F. groups deployed off each coast of Korea, give South Korea additional heavy artillery, tanks and tank busters, declare South Korea and Japan under our nuclear umbrella and wait for N.Korea to implode. They are obviously desperate.
Posted by: genecis at January 16, 2003 1:45 PMGenecis - The trouble is that North Korea will soon be producing 50-60 nuclear weapons a year and selling 70% of them to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states in the Middle East. I agree we wait until Iraq falls, we don't fight two wars at once, then we pressure China and SKor to cut off the North Koreans and starve them, while we do our best to block arms shipments to the Middle East. If the government doesn't fall or submit to giving up WMD and inspections, then we may have to go to war.
I agree about the US troops leaving SKor - but not until after Iraq falls. If we do it now it could only be a sign of weakness; later, it can be a sign of preparation for war that increases pressure on N Kor to settle.