Saddam should have been allowed to continue under strict supervision

Submitted by true believer (India), Apr 26, 2006 at 06:04

Saddam should have been allowed to continue in Iraq under strict supervision. Then he could have been encouraged to fight against Iran. Or US should have found proper a replacement for Saddam who could bring about some order in Iraq. The war with Iraq would have kept Iran occupied. Previously Iran had also bought arms from Israel. It was best to let the Arabs take on the persians. As they say "stay out and watch the fun". In the present day Iran has become a "savior" for the moslem masses (including the Arabs) bu hijacking the palistinian issue and making clear its intentions for destroying Israel. And as long as Saddam fought the persians all Arabs opposed Iran en masse. But after the US attack the Iraqi army dissolved completely (so did the enemity between persians and Arabs) into independent and uncontrollable militias. The newly formed and ill equipped/ill trained Iraqi police force seems incompetent to maintain law and order. The present day Iraq does not seem mature enough for democracy. Moslem Arabs are best managed by dictators and despots who speak their own language.

Instead Iran deserved to be attacked at least a decade back because of its sponsoring and funding terrorism . While it is not militarily very difficult to defeat Iran, it will be almost impossible to hold on to it. You can defeat 5 lakh plus soldiers + an obsolete navy + a small air force that has a few hundred attack helicopters and fewer fighter planes with a superior and better equipped force, but it will be difficult for the conquering forces to stay in Iran in the face terrorist and suicide bomber attacks. Another limiting factor would be Iran’s fully functional missiles. Again if technology can give you a longer arm , you can hit Iranian targets from the persian gulf or even further away, while you yourself stay out of the enemy's striking range.

Arab governments may be corrupt and untrustworthy and their people hawkish but their governments are pliable and somewhat open to negotiation especially if you can twist an arm. This is not the case with Iran, both the people and their government are equally hawkish and militant and may chose to have one of its arms broken rather than negotiate. So islamist Iran with WMDs represents the greatest threat to the civilized world. With the commies/ex-commies like Russia, China and N Korea supporting Iran both politically and materially and with US having its foot stuck deep in Iraq coupled with a weak-willed and divided Europe, Iran seems free to pursue its pet agenda for developing its own WMDs and become the self appointed "messiah" of the islamic world. And once they develop or acquire nukes with the means to deliver them over long distances, they will be more belligerent than N Korea. Because a hungry and bankrupt N Korea may come to the negotiating table asking for aid, but fundamentalist Iran will feed and clothe itself and continue funding and training islamic extremists by selling its abundant oil.

-Francis

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".