The discussion in d3adz0mbie's thread Why is President Bush 'throwing' this election? has me thinking again of something that many have missed about the question of what if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq.
The media love to frame the question (and some of the simple politicians do too) as: Would Iraq be better off with Saddam still in power and Would the world be better off if Saddam was still in power and left alone, but that's not necessarily the question that should be asked.
Saddam may have been a problem that would have resolved itself over the next few years, but in reality, because of absues in the oil for food program that's not very likely. The world would have been waiting for Saddam to die of old age while he starved his people if not outright killing them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (as in, in the way of sites where he wanted to drill for oil and the marsh Arabs that previously had lived in the marsh lands).
That may or may not sound that bad, though the U.N. certainly could have been held accountable for the loss of life that was occuring in Iraq because of children that were starving rather than getting the benefits of that oil-for-food program (or even the children that were being murdered just so Saddam could point to the body count and blame the U.N. and especially the U.S. for the loss of life in his country).
Meanwhile, what concerns me more is what would have happened if, for instance, Saddam died somewhere in the not too distant future? Who was gonna take power in Iraq when Saddam was no longer there?
If things were left as they were, it was very likely that one of Saddam's sons was going to become supreme leader of the country, and that my friends is where I find the biggest reason for fear.
Saddam, by himself, was bad enough. Saddam's sons were so many times worse than he was that it should literally have been reason enough to go in and boot Saddam from power. Google on the following: Saddam's son war crimes and see what results come up. Much of it is shocking. It would also lead to plenty of other articles and information along the way.
Now, imagine that we left Saddam alone, sent in inspectors and let them hunt for another few years monitoring things along the way. Saddam and friends continue to bribe and coerce their friends like Jacques Chirac until the sanctions are lifted, and eventually Saddam's sons are able to start making deals and start really thinking about how they could hold onto power in the country and in the region.
That thought should be enough to convince many forward thinkers of why it was necessary to take action in Iraq sooner rather than later, regardless of any imminent threat from WMDs. Unfortunately it's a thought that is totally ignored by the media which instead wants to focus upon the loss of American lives, the lack of WMDs, and the failings of "Bush's war". For that, I personally say Shame on the media and their biases.
