There’s no doubt in my mind that America spawned a bastard in Saddam in the support of Iraq during the Iran Iraq conflict and now perhaps they are paying the price. A far greater evil has emerged.

Currently, Saddam finds it convenient to present the Americans as the real villains. It is they who cause the stoical Iraqi populace economic hardship and privation. After all, to do so simplifies the picture of the situation. It also justifies Saddam’s stance that an assault on the country by an external power(s)would justify and strengthen his position. It is also convenient giving Saddam the moral cover of martyrdom and suffering in the face of an unjust superior force, to camouflage the comprehensive defeat of his goals. Used previously this approach has had a good measure of success, as the enormous pressures placed on the Iraqi people reinforce its cohesiveness and create a strong sense of shared destiny. The real victims are the Iraqi people who bear the full consequences of Saddam’s leadership.

The US continues to threaten Saddam’s foundations and are now seeking his demise. Is the threat of invasion the latest verbal and active weapon in an ongoing arsenal to remove Saddam from power? The days of knowing may not be a long time away. If the US is going to strike and invade, they are going to have to manage the consequences and bring their promises home. Saddam must be neutered, destroyed or brought to justice – whatever is expedient. Once started this thing could become an avalanche that will rip holes in the fabric of the Middle East. It may only involve a residual if minimal risk; however, the probability of consequent developments will increase tensions significantly in the Gulf region. (The (Gulf) war did not remove the threat but spawned a new and dangerous Middle Eastern arms race, which involved the purchase of long-range missiles by Saudi Arabia, and the development of chemical warfare capabilities by Libya and Syria. This, together with the friction between Israel and the Arab States, could lead to further horrendous risks throughout the region.)

It also raises some extremely difficult questions for the US. What, in fact, are the obligations of the US to the larger community? The responsibility to act lies, in a sense, with the US, but they also have a broader responsibility to influence diplomatically coalition partners. The issue and the way the US deals with the situation is the ultimate challenge of acting in the interests of all.

The invasion, to a certain extent, will be geared to the longer term. Forces, as in Afghanistan, will have to remain in place whilst mopping up operations take place and a new government is installed. Another problem is that with an invasion and air strikes you will be touching every aspect of society and how you avoid that problem is very difficult. You're not in the situation where you can say you'll hurt Saddam only.

High technology and other tools may have given intelligence agencies access to accurate, comprehensive information but I ask myself, has it been able to pinpoint all hidden equipment and weapons of destruction and Saddam’s hideaways or will we yet again be chasing another lingering shadow as we have in bin Laden?

The Iraq regime lacks the power to defend itself and has lost to a certain extent the power to mount an offensive but will Saddam retaliate and if so, will this retaliation take the form of deliberate acts of terrorism ie chemical attacks on population centres and economic targets as a defensive move? We must also be aware that Saddam has channeled all his energies in acquiring weapons of mass destruction – why not the ultimate? Previously he has used them — against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. It would be catastrophic whether a nuclear, biological, or chemical detonation/release was carried out from within Iraq or by terrorist attack beyond Iraq’s borders – a frightening scenario indeed! Could this be true? Probably not, but the possibility exists.

Conclusion: The American’s are caught between a rock and a hard place! They will be damned if the do and damned if they don’t. The strategies the US pursues and how those strategies are pursued cross ethical and moral boundaries. It has come down to a choice between two evils and one has to ask, “which is the greater”? The moral ground for the US position is that an all-out attack will finally destroy the threat of Iraq’s capabilities and lessens the risk of such weapons being used against populations internally or externally. They are also playing for mortal stakes in which all our fates are correlated. The issue raises some difficult questions of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. It’s a tough problem and the American’s themselves will have to choose a way to resolve the issue. If they have done all that they can to strike a balance, both morally and practically and attempts at diplomacy failed to work (if you cannot open Saddam’s eyes because he refuses to see, if he refuses to listen to what you are shouting and if he cannot swallow what you are attempting to stuff down his throat then there is no option but to strike him hard). I believe the US has no other choice. It may be painful but it’s absolutely necessary action be taken. If we stand for anything, we must stand for a better world and we must work for a better world.

One thing remains firm, a vicious dog is best watched and can never be trusted, lest it creep up and bite you. There are also times, when it is morally responsible to destroy such a vicious dog for the safety of all!