Sunday, February 12, 2006
A reckless gamble
Of course, a hunger strike only works if people care that he starves himself to death. Allah forfend, the government of Iraq will let Saddam starve until he either throws in the towel or buys the farm.
Saddam has a history of making reckless and dangerous decisions that literally made no sense. It was this history that made it impossible for any responsible American president to rely on deterrance alone as the means for containing Saddam's Iraq (you can't deter a country or person that chronically miscalculates). It seems to me that he is doing it again -- he is gambling with either his life or his small remaining prestige, and it is highly unlikely that he will win.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Feb 12, 10:56:00 AM:
I think we made a big mistake in capturing him alive. The last words he should have heard: "fire in the hole!"
By , at
Sun Feb 12, 03:17:00 PM:
After treating his people like trash after all his years then he want to get special treatment why dont he just cantect HUMANS RIGHTS WATCH or AMNEST INTERNATIONA or at least the ACLU
By , at
Sun Feb 12, 09:26:00 PM:
Going on hunger strike? Great news. I'll mail him an empty Care Package.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Mon Feb 13, 10:14:00 PM:
Well, Roberto, that's a heck of way to look at the history. Hatred of Saddam is less irrational than just about any other hatred one might imagine.
But, my point is less that Saddam was brutal as it was that he made very poor decisions in foreign policy, some on the verge of suicidally stupid. Deterrance, however, depends on a foundation of rationality and intelligence. If one side is irrational and precipitous, you can't be sure enough that they will be deterred to rely on deterrance as the sole means of containment.
