The Paradox of "Further Paradox"

Submitted by Ken Olson (United States), Aug 27, 2002 at 17:41

John Leabeater's response of "Further Paradox" noted by Pipes, essentially asks, "what if we said we would do nothing to Saddam, what would the Arabs really do in response?"

What if we had told the Arabs before Desert Storm, "unless you agree to allow Israel help defeat our common enemy, we do nothing"? I think the Arabs would have blinked. What would have happened if Saddam attacked Saudi Arabia and other Arab states? It seems like either we might never have gotten involved in the first place, or we would have gotten involved with Israel instead. In the latter scenario, Saddam would be history.

Did petro-dollars cloud our discretion and ethics in Desert Storm? Is it clouding our policy regarding Iraq, now? Is petro-dollars allowing the Arabs to use us unwitting pawns?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".