In the words of BBC Middle East analyst Gerald Butt (2001), "…his (Saddam's) opponents have not been able to nominate anyone else who might hold Iraq together -- with its Kurds in the north, Sunni Muslims in the centre [sic], and Shi'a in the south. What the outside world calls terror, Saddam calls expediency." Interestingly, Butt's analysis took into consideration the fact that despite the atrocities that Saddam had

Even governments who supported the use of force, most notably Britain, did not support the regime change." Motivating U.S. position, author Robert J. Lieber justifies the preemptive and preventive use of force by the American policymakers: "militant Islamic terrorism plus weapons of mass destruction pose a threat and require us to alter the way we think about the preemptive and even preventive use of force." Supporting the human rights argument

During times where they are not needed, this would be a waste of resources. Instead, a PMC is there when the military needs it, and when the mission is over, the military no longer has to spend resources to maintain their personnel. Another benefit, although this is also the source of many ethical challenges as will be discussed later, is a PMC's ability to operate more freely than a state's

Accordingly, Browder notes that "the discipline of public administration has little sense of its historical circumstances and constantly re-issues 'new' calls for science and rigour. Instead, we must focus more research on critical, historically-based studies." (p. 1) Browder argues that the insertion of administrative evil into such discussions provides just such a basis for consideration. Key Scholars: The key scholars of importance in this discussion are Adams & Balfour, whose 1998

(MACV Dir 381-41) This document is one of the first confidential memorandums associated with the Phoenix Program, which details in 1967 the mostly U.S. involvement in counterinsurgency intelligence and activities and discusses the future training and development of South Vietnam forces to serve the same function, that had been supported by the U.S. In civilian (mostly CIA) and military roles. The document stresses that the U.S. role is to

(Reese, Killgore & Ritter 22) Another well documented myth is that Iraq and some active terrorist organization, of which Iraq is not one, have benefited from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, through the proliferation of Soviet weapons scientists and their knowledge. A another fear of WMD proliferation was through Soviet "brain drain." Yet there has been no open-source evidence indicating that WMD materials or knowledge has reached terrorist hands from