Shish, you would think so. But two key points. Not attacking and leaving the madman in charge would leave our allies in the area in danger. And it would give the appearance, we were the ones bluffing, not the madman, and are nothing more than a big bag of hot air. The only way we don't attack soon is if massive amounts of WMD are admited to by Iraq, shown where they are, and are started to be destoryed. None of this easter egg hunt piece meal crap.
-------
It should be noted here that the United States has deployed the
bulk of its mobile strike forces to the region. They cannot be
kept there indefinitely, due to threats elsewhere in the world.
Therefore, as they withdrew, profound political concerns would
emerge in countries such as Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman,
which have taken political and strategic risks to align
themselves with the United States. As Washington withdraws its
forces and Saddam Hussein continues to dominate Iraq, the
willingness of other nations to stand with the United States will
decline. The effect on U.S. allies in the region who have agreed
to participate in the war against Iraq will be substantial and
will reverberate for an extended period of time.
This leads to the second dimension: psychology. The credibility
of the threat posed by the United States will decline
substantially if there is no war. The calculation within the
Islamic world of whether al Qaeda or the United States is more to
be feared will solidify rapidly: Al Qaeda is a real threat to
regimes in the region; the United States is not. If Washington
abandons its war plans and Hussein is left in place, the
perception of the Islamic world will be that the United States
had neither the will nor the power to destroy its enemy. One of
the arguments that al Qaeda has made consistently is that the
United States is weak and that its troops will not endure
hardship and danger. It is this argument that has made bin
Laden's recruitment effective.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
