UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, March 27, 2003 |
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER: William Safire argues this is the only acceptable outcome of this war, drawing parallels to World War Two and the US Civil War. I disagree. Our war aims are to liberate Iraq from a tyrannical regime and to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction. Given that, I would still be willing to accept a settlement where Saddam went into exile with some conditions attached if we can secure that now before thousands more lives are lost. While it would be much more satisfying for Saddam to be killed or at least put on trial for war crimes, it would be inconceivable for us insist on that if it means the deaths of another couple hundred Coalition soldiers and an untold number of Iraqi citizens.
That said, something like unconditional surrender will be the outcome of this war because there appear to be no conditions under which Saddam would capitulate. As brutal as the Japanese regime of Tojo was, they cared enough about their people to give up rather than see another atomic bomb dropped. Saddam has no such compassion.
Update (10:20): Stephen Green reached the same conclusions via a different path.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Coping With the Worst of the Election Season
- One Third of Atlanta Police Academy Grads Have Criminal Records
- OTB Latenight - Rod Stewart
- Palins Mistakes Fans for Protestors
- Caption Contest Winners
- Dow Closes Up 936 Points! Record Gain!
- Obama Losing Whites, Winning the Election?
- Government Ownership of Banks
- George Soros on the Bank Run
- Questioning Their Motives
Comments are Closed
