Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Occhidiangela]

Well, uh, no. The sanctions did plenty. First and foremost, they killed a lot of people. Whether that was worth it or not depends on where you sit, we're not going to go over that again. But past that, they apparently prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining anything even resembling a WMD program after the Gulf War, and indeed prevented Iraq from rebuilding anything at all, except Saddam's ego. The invasion has even verified that he was far weaker than even our lowest estimates considered.

Not hardly. The sanctions put an economic crimp on Saddam and his power base, but the seal on Iraq was hardly airtight. The scrutiny that Iraqi import/exports underwent certainly slowed down the programs he was developing. What the sanctions could not do was anything about the programs already in place if he did not fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspections, which was the case from the word go. The sanctions did what they always do, and what blockades have always done: the cost a lot of money and effort to maintain, and hurt the poor more than they hurt the rich by slowing down the economy.

As to the bit I italicized, hindsight is 20-20. When you deal with securitythreats, you deal with the combinations of capability, intentions, and capacity for collective action. The intentions bit has always been the hardest nut to crack. As a stellar example, Saddam was rather surprised that Pres Bush, the elder, reacted as he did to the Kuwait invasion. He misread US intentions, had a pretty good idea as to our capability, and was also way off on the capacity for collective action.

The entire problem of the war on terror, and such links as Iraq does or does not have to it, is that of uncertainty. (State sponsored terrorism: paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers as an incentive is exactly that, though that terrorism is aimed at Israel. Think of 'War on Terror" as something far more than "revenge for 9-11" and you will see a different picture.)

More hindsight: A forthright effort early on, in 1991-1992 by Saddam and friends to meet the 90 day deadline and comply would have left to outcomes: the economic freedom to rebuild faster, be it economy or weapons programs, and a better political hand internationally in re "OK, we played by your rules, now back off." Such a position would have put some Americans back to sleep, and left the political will for vigilance rather less powerful than the stance that induced Pres Clinton to keep Iraq on the front page by sending Tomahawks their way every now and again.

In hindsight, we can play with a lot, and see any number of things more clearly. What you have to deal with as a decision maker is:

risk and uncertainty, and the question of:

If I do this, what will that do to "5-10 years from now?"
If I don't do this, what will that do to "5-10 years from now?"

Jester, where will you be, lifewise, in 5 years, and how to you plan to get there? What is your plan for 10 years from now?

If you know the answer to those two questions, chances are that in 5 and 10 years you can look back and see how close to that plan your life followed.

If you don't know the answer to those two questions, you probably need to consider them. While you are doing so, tell me how you feel competent to judge anyone whose decision horizon includes not just himself, but an entire nation, and for that matter a considerable part of the globe.

Uncertainty. How to deal with it? Don't suggest to me what NOT to do, consider what TO DO to deal with uncertainty.

Occhi