Finally, Mort Halperin gives the anti-war side of the debate what it has obviously lacked: an alternative strategy for dealing with the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein. He calls it “containment-plus.” It depends on a Security Council resolution that I’m not sure would pass, but it sounds like it’s worth a try.
And just yesterday, my colleague Amy Zegart — in the course of wiping up the floor with Arianna Huffington in a debate about war here at UCLA — provided the best statement I’ve heard of what our objectives in a war should be and why waiting and counting on deterrence has poor prospects. She also convinced me that September 11 makes a real difference in thinking about how to approach Iraq, in a way that doesn’t depend on the idea that the fanatical Baath secularists who run Iraq and the fanatical Wahabbis in al-Qaeda are somehow in cahoots. If Amy writes it down, I’ll post it.
It’s a little late for the two sides in this debate to be finally getting their acts together, but better late than never.
Comments are closed.