Submitted by John Leabeater(United States), Aug 20, 2002 at 13:05
I'd like to extend the paradox mentioned in the first line of this article further: might not non-intervention paradoxically allow Iraq's neighbors the opportunity to later agree with intervention?
Or might non-intervention, to extend the above scenario further, then allow Iraq's neighbors to solve the Iraqi leadership problem without the need for western intervention? Mr. Hussein seems quite able to supply these neighbors with adequate cause.
Might non-intervention then allow the Middle East and Europe an opportunity to mature in their viewpoint?
Might intervention only aggravate these neighbors and entrench them in their positions before those positions are allowed to be disproven?
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.