Steven Den Beste is in top form with his essay on the tactics of delay over an Iraqi invasion. He points out that saying "Yes, but later" is often one of the more effective ways of killing an issue – and that’s exactly what nations like Russia and France are doing now in terms of the UN resolution on Iraq. Both nations have invested a lot of money selling Saddam equipment on credit, and they have pragmatic financial reasons for wanting him to stay around.
On the other hand, the supposed backing away from the idea of regime change by the Bush Administration isn’t at all what it’s been said to be. If Saddam completely disarms, then yes, the US justification for war collapses. But the point is that’s not an option that Saddam would ever exercise. This is exactly like Bush telling the Taliban that they could avoid war by turning over bin Laden and all members of al-Qaeda. It’s a demand he knows will not be granted because it would be tantamount to surrender. Saddam isn’t any more likely to take the bait than Mullah Omar was.
We’re still committed to regime change in Iraq in fact if not necessarily in word. We know that Saddam will not disarm, and will not comply with UN resolutions. With or without the support of the United Nations, Saddam will be removed and Iraq will be freed from the Hussein regime.
