WMDs (what again?)

[gilliam]

The release of the Saddam documents has made me think (alas, again) about the WMD issue, which we could call the “Great Gotcha” of the Iraq War. It’s all about politics and little about itself, about reality. In other words, leaving aside partisan gain, ask yourself to what extent would Saddam eventually have had significant WMDs and should we have been worried about that? The documents are showing us many things related to this issue so far, but two appear to be particularly important: 1. Saddam’s willingness to work with and encourage terror organizations when he felt like it. (See Stephen Hayes’ Camp Saddam) 2. His continued interest in WMDs via Russian and Turkish scientists, who were - if the documents are to be believed and let’s assume for the moment they are - working in Iraq right under the noses of the UN inspectors.

Now with all due respect to the Turks, I’m not especially sure of their level of scientific competence, but the Russians? The second country to have the atom and hydrogen bombs, a country we now know was willing to share at least some secrets with the Saddam regime? If we think through this with any honesty, that is a far scarier revelation in the long term than the discovery of a few suitcases of anthrax. There is an argument to be made that left to their own devices the Russians would have eventually turned Saddam into a full-blown nuclear powerwith Uday and Qusay as heir apparents. It’s Dr. Strangelove times four, Slim Pickens. Think about that one when you wonder whether the war was a good idea.

It will be interesting to see if our mainstream media, when it starts to digest this material, reacts with any thoughtfulness.

rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/03/wmds_what_again.php

 

[cathologos]

Keep trying, gilliam. You may eventually stumble on a credible argument in defense of the Iraq folly. I doubt it, but you may.

We’re no longer arguing that Saddam had WMD; only that he “would like to have had.” And that’s justification for pre-emptive war. We’d better plan on taking out quite a few other regimes, in that case.

The war was justified to the public through mis-representations of fact. Those who questioned the validity of evidence that has since been shown to have been bogus were discredited. The administration has trotted out a series of ‘serial justifications’ for its actions, replacing one failed argument with another.

And underlying all of this is the fact that the planning was incompetently handled. The military action was undermanned; the scope of the challenge was underestimated. As a result, we’re three years into a conflict that shows little sign of an end, little progress at all, really.

Do I support our troops? Darn right I do! I have three family members who are career military officers, and an old grad school friend who is a general officer in the Army. Do I support them, care about their well-being and success? Of course I do. But that doesn’t mean that I turn a blind eye to the simple fact that the policy here was wrong from day one, the planning was inadequate, and the outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory.

I suggest that you read The March of Folly, by Barbara Tuchman, one of the 20th century’s better historians. It’s not about Iraq – but it could be.

 

[gilliam]

I am not trying to justify the liberation of 25 million people.

I am just posting news.