http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/opinion/20KRIS.html?todaysheadlines

"Rigorous inspections are worth a try, because Saddam is a shrewd 
survivor. Indeed, it's a tribute to his survival talent that he's 
outmaneuvered the U.N. and rebuilt Iraq since the gulf war -- and that 
many Iraqis seem to blame Americans for a decade of sanctions and 
suffering, rather than him. In any case, there is no longer any sign of 
war damage, and the bazaars are bustling with Pepsi, Tom-and-Jerry 
school bags, Barbie coloring books, and 50-cent pirated videodiscs for 
movies like "Unfaithful," "Rush Hour" and "Snow Dogs."

The booming economy (the C.I.A. says the Iraq economy grew 15 percent in 
2000) reflects smuggling, illegal oil surcharges and the eclipse of 
effective sanctions. Indeed, I came in from Damascus on a 
sanctions-busting flight, which shouldn't exist under the U.N. rules. 
But it was a Boeing 747, and every seat was full. That's not to say it 
was smooth: the plane had started down the runway when the crew realized 
that they had forgotten to close one door. They stopped, closed the 
door, and then we all chanted "Allahu Akbar" three times and took off.

The only hope to avert war is inspections that are completely 
restructured and greatly empowered. One of the best ideas comes from 
Corey Hinderstein and David Albright of the Institute for Science and 
International Security: they suggest that Iraqi weapons scientists and 
their entire families could be taken out of Iraq and interviewed where 
they would be beyond retaliation.

The earlier U.N. inspections have been justly criticized, but for all 
their weaknesses they did manage to destroy "far more of Saddam 
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction" than the gulf war itself did, the 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported in March. Really 
tough and aggressive inspections could do even better and just might be 
able to neutralize Iraq without a war."

Doug


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to