When the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein from power, many cheered “good riddence” of one less evil empire. But in the 10 years since the toppling of Hussein’s rule, Iraq has become a hotbed of instability and a breeding ground for terrorism. And although there were no so-called “weapons of mass destruction,” Saddam’s armories did contain weapons that were used against coalition forces for the years that followed.
Now we’re on to Libya, as the U.S. is lining up international allies for a possible airstrike to force Ghadafi from power. Except Libya DOES have plenty of weapons of mass destruction that will be left behind should Ghadafi disappear. Despite international sanctions, Libya had acquired an impressive arsenal from multiple sellers in the former Eastern bloc, that resembles a cold war clearance sale. So the threat of those weapons falling into unknown hands is authentic and of great concern.
Ghadafi has used mustard gas on his own people in the past, so the world knows he has plenty still stored somewhere within the country. Libya also holds a variety of shoulder-harnessed surface-to-air missiles, capable of causing great damage should a terrorist group seize control of them.
So here’s the question: Is the world safer by keeping a controlled Ghadafi in power while continuing to monitor him just as we have done in previous years? Or is it better to remove Ghadafi, possibly creating a leadership vacuum that risks Libya falling into the wrong hands?
Interesting point DJ. If these weapons end up in the wrong hands it could be a disaster. I know Obamas on his job though.