Disarm or Destroy?

What do they mean when they say they want to disarm Saddam Hussein?

Think about what would be necessary for someone to disarm YOU. Many of my gun-owning friends subscribe to the phrase "they'll get my gun when they pry it from my cold, lifeless hands" or words to that effect. Okay, so it's pretty clear that we'll need military force to "disarm" the Iraqi dictator, and the buildup of our forces in the Persian Gulf pretty much point to that eventuality. But why the focus on one man?

The president said the other night, "…let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." The president even made an appeal directly to the citizens of Iraq, saying that the day Hussein is removed from power "…will be the day of your liberation." Those, my friends, are very strong words.

To put my question another way, if Saddam suddenly went into exile in another country, would we no longer be concerned about the thousands of tons of bioweapons supposedly in Iraq's arsenal? Are we really silly enough to believe that the ouster of Hussein will signal the end of the problems in Iraq? Well, of course not. It's the entire government in Iraq and most, if not all, of their military that needs to be replaced, if the claims by Powell and Bush and Cheney are to be believed. My question is, why won't they just come out and say it? "We're taking over Iraq, dammit! It's for their own good!"

Go ahead, call me naïve. I never said I was good at this global diplomacy stuff. The problem is that I'm starting to suspect that the guy who lives on Pennsylvania Avenue is not so good at it, either. You see, I value personal integrity and apparently that's not a good trait for a world leader.

More later…
Paul