Not likely. Saddam’s latest gamble is less an indication of his intent to disarm than a sign of how desperate his plight is. He wants to use the inspection issue – its vagaries, details and endless process – both to split the Security Council (i.e. France) and to buy time. This was, of course, always a risk and one of the strongest arguments for by-passing the U.N. altogether. But Bush’s speech was smarter than Saddam may recognize. The resolutions Bush invoked mean that Iraq must do far far more than simply play the inspector cat-and-mouse game again. It must actively disarm, destroy its weaponry, allow U.N. monitors a long-running role in the country, and give up its active sponsorship of terrorism. The White House is therefore absolutely right to throw the issue back to the Security Council with the assertion that “this is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail.” We’re now headed, I think, for a fight over what genuinely unfettered inspections require and which resolutions Iraq is supposed to adhere to. I say: unconditional, unfettered, military-backed inspectors with no time limit on their withdrawal; and every single U.N. resolution. Apart from the obvious need to have real access anywhere any time, it also seems to me that inspectors should have the right to interrogate Iraqi scientists and be in a postion to offer them political asylum if needs be. The regime’s very existence impedes genuine inspection, which is why some political space must be created for inspections to work adequately. My best guess is that there will be several rounds of shenanigans and a great deal of brinkmanship in the weeks ahead. But whatever happens, the U.S. cannot let the inspections regime return to the farce of the 1990s. Meanwhile, war preparations need to continue apace. They’re the reason we have this concession. They’ll be the reason we get any more.
THE BRITS RALLY: A dramatic swing in British public opinion toward war with Iraq. Even the Guardian is aghast:
Three weeks ago a similar Guardian/ICM poll asking the same question showed 50% opposed to a military attack on Baghdad and 33% in favour, a gap of 17 points. Now the gap has narrowed to four points with 40% against the possible war and 36% in favour. The rise of the “don’t knows” from 17% to 24% suggests that growing numbers are no longer sure that they disapprove of the idea.
This is called leadership. Bush and Blair have done this. Without them, it would not have happened.
THE LAST WORD ON SOUTH FLORIDA: Yes, Dave Barry has it down.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “Defense attorneys had asked the jury to spare Westerfield’s life by portraying the defendant as a family man who has contributed to society through his patented design work on devices used in medicine and other fields. Westerfield had no prior felony record and played an active role in the lives of his children and close friends, defense attorney Steven Feldman said. ‘He’s a good man but for one three-day weekend of terror,’ he said.” – From MSNBC’s account of the conviction of David Westerfield for kidnapping and killing a 7-year-old girl.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG: Why I’m wrong about appeasement; wrong about the New York Times and Zimbabwe; wrong about the war; wrong about Chomsky; and wrong about the U.N. Welcome to the most masochistic Letters Page on the web.
The Dish 