I was clearing out some folders in my Usenet/Newsgroups application and found the following, written (but never posted) in August 2002. It was responding to a post suggesting that it would be "poetic" if the US was to attack Iraq on September 11th, 2002. This is exactly what I wrote then (even the emphases) ...

Under no circumstances does a military attack on anyone, for whatever reason, count as "poetic". As to the linkage with 9/11/01, I'm not aware of much evidence linking the current Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda (there's much more, for example, linking al-Qaeda to Saudi Arabia - a country regarded for the last half century as the US's ally, and protector of the West's interests in Middle Eastern oil).

(Putting it another way, how would you have reacted if someone from an Islamic country described the events of 9/11 as "poetic"??)

No matter how despicable Saddam Hussein is (which he is), no matter what atrocities he's committed against the people of his own country (which he has), no matter that he initiated a war of aggression against Kuwait a decade ago (which he did), no matter that he has created a military infrastructure which has, or is capable of, developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons (which he probably has) .... a US attack on Iraq will be perceived, by millions of people around the world, as another American attack on Islam. On that basis, how much easier will it be for Osama Bin Laden and his followers, or Hamas, or other terrorist organizations, to recruit people willing to commit another 9/11 (or worse)?

Add to that the fact that many of the US's ertwile allies will perceive a US attack on Iraq as (a) GWB "finishing the job his Dad started", (b) GWB fighting the mid-term elections and/or the next presidential elections in the deserts of the Middle East, or (c) the US protecting its long-term supplies of crude oil.

In this situation it barely matters what's right or wrong, or what's true or false ... its all about managing and making the best of highly complex political situations. Military action against Iraq may well be necessary -- that country in particular, and the Middle East in particular, would certainly be a safer place if a more moderate regime was in place in Baghdad. However (and its a big "however"), the advantages have to be weighed up against both the likely and active opposition not just of "Islamic terrorists", but also political distancing of the US from Arab and Islamic countries previously regarded as friendly to the US and the US's traditional Allies in Europe.

I don't have a solution to it - but I do know that unilateral military action against Iraq is not it.