RE: Re: Identity of Hijackers.

["Max Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

. . .
The well-known theory that Iraq and not Bin Laden was behind the 1993
WTC bombing relies on an alleged instance of identity theft. That
theory has been disparaged here on pen-l.


Evidently the question of identity is also a surrogate
for a policy debate within the Bush Admin.  One faction
wants a license to attack any terrorist nation's government
(which includes, by official definition, Iran, Iraq, Sudan,
Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen.), with the primary
objective being Iraq.  The other is oriented to a policing
type policy of selective bombing and commando operations
against terrorist camps, starting with AFghan.  Powell is
on the side of restraint, and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz are on
the other side.

So debates about who did it are debates about who to
attack irrespective of who did it.  Guilt is endogenous
to the decision about how wide a war to engage.  Information
leaks can to some extent be linked to motives apart from
who is guilty.

Reportedly this works in reverse too.  Out of an
aversion to military operations (after the Somali debacle),
the Clinton administration declined to utilize information
that could have linked past attacks to governments.

>From a strict peace/anti-intervention standpoint, demonizing
OBL is better than Saddam.  An attack on Saddam is
a quicker spur to crisis in assorted Arab governments.
Obviously the former can morph into the latter.

mbs