Saddam remains a dangerous foe. His evil instincts remain in the background held in check by the US but let loose he may liberate his hidden terrible impulses, make a virtue of them and tear aside his slender facade imposed by civilisation and run rampant like a mad dog. Why is he so malign, so intent upon destruction? There’s no doubt that he’s a barbarian, a man who comes in contact with a civilisation, yearns for it, and destroys it while he tries to become part of it. I guess if you read enough history you become aware that we’ve never been without them! Is he different from any other man? Every vicious thing he does, all the laws he breaks, every man he ruins, all the power he uses for his own ends. He only shows the worse of mankind.

There’s just one thing I find difficult to understand. It nags at me. Saddam is a hard bastard but I just don’t get the chemicals. What’s the point? Is it just a crude barbarism or something more? I wonder what purpose drives him. Are such “Secret Weapons” to bring him favour in the future? He has agreed to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq but can the UN control him? I cannot help the nagging whisper of doubt that murmurs its traitorous pessimisms in my ear! My every instinct warns me that the longer he remains in a position of power the more dangerous he will become. One thing remains firm, the hatred the Iraqis hold for the US will not become a lesser thing and external uncertainties remain.

Would an outright victory prove advantageous to the interests of the US? The spectacle of the US undertaking bloody retaliations and repression in a post rebellion Iraq would not present a desirable picture to the region and the US could lose influence and prestige in the region. Of indirect concern are the Turks, the Iranians, and others who will stake their claims to disputed territory. Not a desirable outcome overall. Should the US go all the way they would only be setting themselves up for continued problems. At present, there is no end to the situation, no clear cut point at which you can say, well, it’s done, now we can pack up and be on our way home. You fix one problem but turn around a find two more facing you!

Iraq has agreed to readmit UN inspection teams. Iraq in the long term has no option but to accept the UN resolutions, but will Iraq fully comply to the terms set out? Adherence to any agreement would seem to be unlikely. In the past, Iraq has proved hostile to the idea of weapons inspections and the idea that Iraq has fully accepted UN resolutions seems inconceivable. Iraq has shown a flagrant disregard for treaties and rules of law and I am little reassured by Saddam Hussein's recent delaying tactics in talks between UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix over inspections details. We should not be fooled by a simulated acceptance of UN conditions. There is a great deal of subtle activity underlying Iraq’s acceptance.

The UN must make every effort to negotiate and enforce compliance regarding the monitoring of weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately, acceptance is Iraq's decision. They have the choice. If Iraq refuses to recognise the terms, then I believe the UN must consider military action. The UN cannot afford to underestimate Saddam's ruthlessness. Further resistance is a very distinct and viable possibility. Saddam is completely unpredictable and does not follow any logical pathway. Whatever the reason for his compliance, if he backtracks from the agreement, then I believe the UN should demonstrate its power to compel the ratification of any agreement made by Iraq.

The US has made it known that it will also pick up the gauntlet if any agreement is not adhered too? Will Saddam deliberately try to provoke the US and will his ulteria motive be to gain further sympathy from Arab nations and bring the Middle East into conflict?

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!