themistocles

What might strapping young lads and lasses such as yourself guess that, were we not to war with Iraq, the best possible case scenario is? And I don't mean a utopian guess where the outcome is decided ("BCS is flowers, peace, equality, and happiness"), but explain events as they unfold into the conclusions.

Granted, this is an excercise of pure contention and speculation. But I think there's a line between reasonable/realistic and not. And also granted that our scenarios would probably reflect our bias of our positions of Iraq as of now, but I think the "common values" between those who disagree may well emerge from this stupid practice of speculation.

My shot:

I believe the best case scenario is continued inspections and embargos, for which will prevent Saddam from ambitiously expanding his programs or having an opportunity to menace his neighbors and even possibly prevent him from handing over "the goods" to terrrorists to distribute elsewhere.

Saddam eventually will die and regardless of what preparations are in place, there will be a brief but vicious struggle for power in which one of Saddam's son will probably emerge (money's on Qusay) to replace his father. There will be a ruthless Stalinist-style purge to consolidate power and reduce suspicion. Life will resume under Qusay (or whomever) as it did under Saddam as a tyrannical police state in which the resumption of militarization, WMD programs, and terrorist backing will continue or escalate, possibly with less than subtle confrontation with the UN over the sovereignty of the new government.

I'd say that last paragraph is definately best case scenario in that it would prevent longer term balkanization and bloodshed. A ruthless tyrant is more likely to stem such long-term problems.

There you go. I hope my bias isn't showing, but if history has anything to say about this issue, it's that avoiding conflict for the sake of avoiding conflict only means a greater price to pay when the conflict is delivered onto your doorstep. I'm not showing my bias, am I?

Your turn.

leonarde

Partial post:I know we each are supposed to give our own 'best case scenarios' but I can't help but comment on this: this is a NON-STARTER. Why? Because the very nations in the UN Security Council pressing for "more time for inspections" are the very ones who want certification of Iraq's non-WMD status as soon as possible. That certification involves the end of ANY true inspection regime (with just a residual 'monitoring' function perhaps left over).

Why? Because that was the ORIGINAL IDEA behind the ORIGINAL ARMS inspection organization (UNSCOM). Here's the 2nd head of that organization, Richard Butler, talking about the original time frame:
("He" refers to
S. Hussein)
Above is part of an interview with Butler here:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1998/msg00335.html

Soooo, assuming no military action: arms inspections end with a (phony)clean bill of health for Iraq; in 6 months the sanctions are over; this frees billions of dollars per annum; S Hussein will spend much of that money on WMDs.

I can't look into my crystal ball further but a preemptive action by Israel cannot be ruled out.

Cheers!