Quote:
|
Weak leaders in Muslim countries tend to get removed quicker than prom dresses. Saddam wasn't just balancing the fact western countries would go to war with him. He was also balancing his image and station in the Muslim world. He had multiple conflicting goals and requirements to fulfill.
|
There is a difference between looking weak and being weak. There is a difference between the information available to you and me - and to that which was available to the ordinary Iraqi in a country where all media was strictly controlled by the state.
Saddam stood up to big, bad Washington and London while they bombed his country for ten years - no fear of looking weak there. He then goes on to say that its all based on unfounded lies and that the real reason is to stop muslims from becoming strong and to seize their assets. This was the public front that Saddam used even before 1998. But for the, "look I'm a strong leader but I'm being victimised in an unfair fight" to work, it hinged on the fact that no WMD's could be found - it hinged on their destruction - hidden items always come to light. I strongly believe then, that every WMD that Saddam was aware of was already destroyed by 1998 - that fits very well with his propaganda campaign.
Finally (of course) the obvious - when everything is falling around you and you have nothing to lose but your life, you use whatever weapons you have at your disposal. But not a single chemical/biological/nuclear weapon was fired. Not a single illegal missile was fired. Not a single 'drone plane' was used to drop chemicals. Nothing but conventional weapons were used in a fight for survival....