Stardate 20011210.0624 (On Screen): Momma Bear sends in this link to an article from the UK which gingerly approaches the idea that if Iraq can be shown to have been involved in the terrorist attacks of the 1990's (and 2001) that war there would become inevitable. It talks about what the political implications would be if evidence of Iraqi involvement was exposed.
In a sense this is promising; it represents movement by the British press away from a "Hell, no!" attitude about conflict in Iraq towards "Well, maybe." But by positing the idea that proof of Iraqi involvement would lead to war, it also perpetuates the flip-side argument that lack of such evidence would mean that no such war would take place -- and that misses the point. Iraq has to be dealt with because of its potential danger, and for that it isn't necessary to demonstrate that the danger has actually manifested. All that's needed is a plausible demonstration that there's a significant probability that it could in the future, and of that there is no doubt whatever. Like so many commentators on this war, they're still fixated on this war as being intended for revenge and retaliation for prior attacks, rather than to prevent future ones. (discuss)
