 |
| Testing the reaction | |
Celebrity dictator Saddam (no-anthrax-on-me) Hussein seems to have made a
tactical blunder in the lead up to the coming Iraq war. He has been asked (or 'demanded' depending on which media outlet you listen
to) to destroy his arsenal of al-Samoud missiles, because they have a range
greater than the 150Km he is allowed under previous UN resolutions. His
reply has been a petulant 'NO'. Maybe he has been emboldened by millions of unshaven feminists marching around
the world also using the 'N' word. If so he has misread the West. Most of the Western peace-mongers may think that death is better than war, but they aren't fond of guns,
bombs, missiles or especially weapons of mass destruction. If there were peace
protesters waving banners saying 'Saddam has a right to offensive weapons',
they weren't obvious. They see the way forward as a benevolent collection of dictatorships (in the
form of the UN) voting to disarm the whole world 'peace by peace'. Let's face
it - what better way to achieve world socialism since socialism
failed militarily? Refusing to destroy offensive weapons like al-Samoud missiles really goes
against the grain, and reminds the peace-mongers that Saddam isn't really a sensitive new age guy. It
undermines his support in the West, and creates more people who say 'what
the heck - Let's Roll!' So keeping the al-Samouds may be strictly within the 150Km limit (if you
only half fill the fuel tank), but it is militarily pointless, and
also a tactical error. They won't win him the war with the US et al, and he is
compromising his political
game. If he thinks that arguing technicalities with the UN will win he is
mistaken - that battle is based on pseudo-morality. Saddam, there's a good fellow. Be a nice guy, and destroy all your weapons
before we attack you. It'll save a lot of trouble all around.
| 
