It has puzzled me. When Ambassador Holbrooke took up his job, he made a curious statement that he would not be dealing with the Iraq issue, but his deputy would be. And I quite honestly have never known quite what to make of that. I did find it curious. After all, the ambassador to the security council ought to be involved in every major policy issue, and he was implying that this is not a major policy issue.
Regime change is obviuolsly desirable.
Saddam's track record in all fields, including human rights with respect to his own people, his violation of the non-proliferation treaties, make him a really disastrous figure in contemporary international relations. It's highly desirable that there be a different kind of government in Iraq. To say that it's highly desirable is different from saying that it's essential. If the U.S. or anyone else says it's essential, then it could be setting itself up for policy failure. I think the U.S. must be careful not to set itself up in this way.