Death by proxy?
I've been thinking a lot about our "leaders" rush toward a "preventive" war with Iraq - who hasn't been? I've, of course, wondered if it's just an election year stunt, I've wondered if they actually know something that they're not able to share with us that would show the need for such an attack, I've ruminated on all sorts of possibilities. But what I keep coming back to is that we're just using Saddam as a proxy for Osama.
Our army has been unable to kill the guy we really want, so we're going after the guy we think we can get to make the administration feel better. The American people are terrified of the unknown terrorist who may repeat the attacks of September 11, 2001, so we focus our anger on the known terrorist we think we can get.
Saddam, in this situation, is like the virgin being prepared to be thrown into the volcano. He can be sacrificed (who'll miss him?), and the world really would be better off without him (probably). So, what's wrong with that?
If what we're really worried about is Iraq's potential use of biological or nuclear weapons, then our attack, and his imminent demise, are the one thing sure to release such an attack from Iraq. Which again leads us to the policy options explained by Arthur Schlesinger in the article linked in the post below. Read it, if you haven't yet.