Quote:
|
Originally posted by boots: In Lerk's defense, the inspectors wheren't in for the whole 12 years, and they have had their hands tied behind thier backs while they were in Iraq. Part of the problem (as I saw it, at least) is that both sides were intractable in their positions: Status quo Vs Blow-em up. |
Very good point. The policy of containment was intended to offer security and protect the economic/strategic interests. In that regard it succeeded. Iraq didn't make a peep for 12 years for the most part.
It's only in light of the War on Terror that suddenly Containment seems like such a questionable policy. If we suspect that Iraq might be festering in it's box, but offering aid and support to outside enemies, then we have a problem.
Some interpret 9/11 as some kind of new threat or new conflit. If you believe that, it's easy to see Iraq as central to the problem.
If you think 9/11 was essentially another horrible event in what's been decades of horror and conflict, Iraq doesn't seem the immediate threat some would portray it to be.
Did Containment keep Saddam from attacking anyone? Yep.
Did Containment cause Arab Nationalism to fester even more than we ought to have allowed? Definitely.
I've always said I thought there were lots of options between "status quo" and "blow 'em up". Too late to wonder about it now. At this point I'm hoping we can recognize how Containment failed (in respect to Arab Nationalism) and take the necessary steps after the Ba'ath regime is gone to prevent the same mistake all over again.