Why Iraq? - People ask

Why Iraq? - People ask many questions about the apparently-looming invasion of Iraq. Perhaps the best one is "why Iraq at all?"

There are many states in the region that are tied to terrorism. Syria, Iran and North Korea all been intimately linked with state-sponsored terror. Iran is also involved in supporting resistance to our efforts in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, large parts of Saudi, Yemeni, Pakistani, Somali, Sudanese and Algerian society actively support terror, including an incriminatingly-large piece of the Saudi royal family.

So why not invade them?

So many reasons. Where to start?

Saudi Arabia: There's a sort of simplistic moral calculus to the notion of attacking Saudi Arabia. Parts of the House of Saud actively support terror, and most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The Saudi military is tiny. Why not attack them?

Because it'd make our problems in that part of the world vastly worse. Bin Laden used our presence as invited defenders of Saudi Arabia in the birthplace of the Moslem world as grounds for his anti-Americanism. What do you think'd happen if we conquered Saudi Arabia by force? The sight of Marines guarding the Qa'ba in Mecca would sit about as well with Moslems as the notion of Arab terrorists occupying Manger Square would with Christians...er, wait. Maybe the Vatican is a better example.

And if we invaded them, we'd still have Iraq, WMDs and all, to deal with.

But we don't have to do that. Saudi power is not military, it's economic; namely, oil. And if we have bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and, soon, Iraq, then Saudi access to the world oil market is completely at our pleasure. We'll control the House of Saud without firing a shot.

Iran: The fiscal paper trail leads directly from Iran to Hamas, Jamiyat-e-Islami, and many other world terrorist groups. Why not invade them?

Two reasons: First, Iran is more populous than Afghanistan, and almost as mountainous. Militarily, it'd be a lot to bite off. But - second -
we don't have to. There are signs, as I noted in this space yesterday, that Iran's internal schisms are ready to split the country's mainstream
from its ruling theocracy. We may see Iran dropping its support of theocratic terror on its own, without needing to act directly.

North Korea - They're behind a lot of terror. They are also the world's largest military, per capita, and while their equipment is 1960's-vintage Soviet and Chinese stuff, they have one of the world's most ruggest countries to defend. Unlike equally-rugged Afghanistan, it's very unlikely that we'd find any internal forces ready to rise up against dictator Kim Jong-Il - his police state seems utterly Orwellian in its thoroughess.

But they're also on the brink (possibly) of collapsing under their own weight. The South Koreans seem satisfied with the headway they've made. Although Clinton's caving-in on their nuclear program has potentially created danger, North Korea can, it seems, wait.

Syria: Syria has backed Arafat, and worse, for decades. There are those, whose opinions I respect, who advocate attacking Syria instead of Iraq. It's a hard case to attack.

But as with the Saudis - if you attack Syria (which has a relatively large, modern military that was not attenuated by the Gulf War), you still have Iraq and its WMDs to deal with. Syria is also harder to get to - we have bases in the Mediterranean, but aside from Turkey they're not as close, and it's doubtful the Turks would grant us carte blanche to use their territory to launch such an attack. If our "war on terrorism" has any integrity, we will truly need to deal with the Syrians. But the Syrians have no chemical weapons, no nuclear program that anyone's heard of, and no oil wealth to prop them up. They are solid candidates to fall into line, if a huge American presence in neighboring Iraq threatens.

I'll take off my armchair general hat now, and see what really happens...