Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Containment, Part Deux: Okay, I conveniently didn't address Mead's second part, that about the de-stabilization. I don't agree that we're only in Saudi because of Iraq. But, if we take over Iraq, there will be no reason to stay in Saudi, and in fact, good reason to get out, as Mead alludes to, because our presence there alone pisses the Muslims off. By invading Iraq and staging bases there, we then inhabit a land which has been essentially secular for decades, and we can assuage many of those who say we defile the holy land. Then again, if Mead is correct, and we're only in Saudi b/c of Iraq, we shouldn't need to stay in Iraq long once Saddam is gone. Hmmm, right. I'm sure we'll back right out of Iraq once we have a new dictator, I mean, President, in place in Baghdad. That brings up another issue that I heard on NPR last night. The guest said we will need a benevolent dictator as a segue to a democratic regime because you'll need some sort of iron fist to keep the three warring factions in check. A true democracy would devolve into a Haiti-type situation. And we know how well our policy has done on that tiny island.