Saddam did have WMDs and used them, no doubt about that.
But. When the invasion of Iraq was imminent, Germany and
others asked for proof that the allegations made by president
Bush that Saddam had WMDs and actually tried to use them
could be substantiated.
We know the answers your intelligence services came up with,
among them a formidable 19 page report by the British of
which 16 pages where an exact copy of a postgraduate thesis
from the early 1990s.
Germany is ready and willing to lend support, money and
troops in case of an international crisis and has proven
that in Afghanistan, and in the (real) war on terror as
well.
In the years prior to 911 and then the invasion, the world agreed that Saddam had WMDs. He had used them on Iraq and on his own people. He refused to prove that he had destroyed them. He thwarted attempts to inspect and prove that he had. He lied, manipulated, obfuscated and danced around the whole effort to prove that he had. It strains credulity to believe he had destroyed them. Because the efforts to make him comply with the 17th (or was it 18th?) UN resolution "final warning" were stalled by countries such as Germany and France, he had plenty of time to destroy, hide and/or ship out of the country what he had.
I, for one, will never believe that he did not have any WMDs on the eve of our invasion. I believe he destroyed some (dumped some into the Tigris, destroyed others) during the weeks leading up to the invasion and the rest he shipped to Syria. I still believe they will be found one day - hopefully not by their use on innocents.
"Germany is ready and willing to lend support, money and
troops in case of an international crisis and has proven"
That was then.
Whatever one thought about the war then, the fact of the war, and the Iraqi election, and the existence of Al Qaeda within Iraq now, forces a change of policy.
Perhaps Germany cannot, for political reasons, send troops to Iraq. But to deny that there is an international crisis in Iraq now is to be blind.
Likewise, if the Americans pull out now, what happens?
Iraq falls to the Al Qaeda insurgency. A worse crisis than that cannot be imagined.
Would it have been better for the US to have not invaded Iraq but, instead, closed its own borders, ceased Muslim immigration into the US, and spied upon the Muslims within America? That would have been the approach favored by the French.
But that is water under the bridge.
Whether the Americans were correct or not about the presence of WMD, Saddam Hussein was certainly a mass murderer. One can hardly shed tears that he is gone.
If the American war was technically illegal, Hussein's shooting at UN Coalition planes was certainly illegal, and mass murder, torture and rape rooms were crimes against humanity.
His removal is a benefit, regardless of the legality of it.
In the here and now, Iraq is the place in which all of the Islamist terrorists of the world have concentrated, to attack Americans. Obviously the current French and German governments cannot back down and send troops.
But we cannot pretend that there is not a crisis: there is now.
And we cannot pretend, even if it was caused by the United States acting rashly, that the outcome would be better if the Americans left and the place fell to Al Qaeda.
Non.
The Iraqiens voted. They want a democracy. That much is clear. If the Americans leave, the chances for democracy there will be murdered by the terrorists.
Yes, the terrorists would not be there in force if the Americans had not entered, and Saddam were left to torture his people. But the Americans did enter, and are there, and Al Qaeda is there now.
The American causes were perhaps imperfect, and the course of action chosen was perhaps not optimal. But we have what we have, they did what we did, and reality is that it will be a disaster for humanity if they lose.
Surely you know this.
Chirac is stubborn and the French people cannot send troops there. But at least there can be cooperation on Lebanon with the US. Syria is a bad regime that supports terror. We all know this.
And at the very least we can just shut up and stop reciting the reasons the Americans should not have gone to war in Iraq. No one knows better than the Americans the price they have paid, and will still have to pay, for that undertaking. They undertook it. France did not agree. Germany did not agree. But they have to win. And everyone who thinks about it must know that.
Germans didn't support the war.
France did not either.
But it does no good to beat the fallen ass and claim that no crisis exists.
Given the spectacular failure of both Chirac and Schroeder to address the particular problems of France and Germany, it is perhaps time to stop complaining about two years ago, stop trying to put a bar in the wheels of the Americans (and British) in a war that it is now important for everybody that they see through to the end, and perhaps focus upon areas in which we can usefully cooperate.
In other words, even if there remains resentment with the Americans over the unneccessary pretext for the war, it IS necessary that they win it, and it is necessary that Germans and French people not be fools and keep carping about it and making rapprochement impossible.
Only a fool continues to fight in a house which is on fire.
Europe is staggering, and trying to refight the diplomatic arguments of 2002-2003 are not going to fix the problems in Europe. They will only antagonize the Americans further, for no purpose.
Even Chirac and Villepin understand this well enough to no longer complain about the war in Iraq. It is what it is. The Americans have to win it now or it will be a disaster. They are properly chastened and will not underestimate the dangers and go recklessly into another Middle Eastern country again. They have learnt their lesson and now have to win this war.
It is time for Germans, too, to shut up about it and hope they win. Not send troops, perhaps, but stop making the divisions worse. Nothing is served by it. And Schroeder will soon be gone too. Why continue to inflict damage on relations with the Americans when with his departure the Americans will be inclined to forgive and work with the new German government?
OK
If the 2000 on ground in Afganistan want to sign up in the US Army, I'll support them ... knew a first class ex-Ger/ex-Legion (ex-Rus) guy back in 70's SF days.
Otherwise, stay home and build up some cottage industries after the US forces pull all that nasty US$ out.
We know that prior to the war there was a great deal of cross traffic between Syria and Iraq, that there was a great deal of planning for a common defense, or better yet a common offense. We know that weapons were brought in from Syria and that other convoys carrying military equipment left Iraq for Syria.
We know that US troops deployed into the field believing they would be hit with chemical weapons, and we now know that Saddam's generals believed that Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons, and were told to expect such attacks.
So why did the attacks not materialize, when even Iraqi generals expected them?
Its a good question. I believe the answer went with the convoys that went to Syria. But if Saddam's generals believed they had them, and we already know very well the dance that took place every time the UN inspectors tried to enter a facility, with trucks exiting out the back gate, then we can't be faulted for believing they existed. And still exist.
The WMD issue was never our main issue for going in, we were going in I believe from the day Bush took office. WMD was the only issue the UN cared about, and after 17 or 18 resolutions, with UN management being paid off through the Oil For Food, which we now know was among the largest scams in history, we're pretty doubtful they ever cared about it.
But WMD was not our issue. Our issue was this; we saw Saddam as a threat to the region. Sanctions had been imposed to restrain him, but sanctions were unraveling. France had signed contracts worth maybe $100 billion dollars which were only valid if sanctions were ended with Saddam still in office; Russia had signed a similar set of contracts, which meant that in effect the Security Council had already been bought. Those contracts were worthless as long as sanctions were in place, and they were worthless if Saddam was overthrown, which meant the clock was ticking for an end to sanctions.
That, for anyone paying attention, meant that Saddam would be emerging from his isolation with EU, Russian, and UN support leaving him stronger than when he went in. Our choice was to accept it, and deal with the consequences of a more powerful Saddam, or move quickly to end his regime. We chose the latter.
The secondary reason was this; although the press is fond of saying that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the truth is much more complicated. There is actually a long list of connections, including connections with the people who hit the World Trade Center in the early nineties, direct connections with Bin Ladin in Sudan, direct connections with the 911 hijackers in Malaysia, direct connections with Abu Nidal, and on and on. No one likes to talk about some of these, because there are also connections to the Saudis, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Iran, and on and on. Even we can't take them all down at once. So we take one down, and then apply pressure to the next.
Whatever the press says, you can assume that German intel knows all of this. They had the choice of helping us, staying out of the way, or obstructing us. They chose two of the three, obstructing us publicly and helping us privately. We appreciate the help, and we're annoyed at the obstruction and the lack of public support. We're big boys, we can take heat, but like anyone we would like a kind word once in awhile from our friends.
It is substantiated that Saddam violated numerous UN resolutions demanding compliance with safeguards to prevent him from having or developing WMDs.
It is substantiated that the UN inspectors were on the take
It is substantiated that Hussein supported terrorist organizations (and had ties with al Queda)
It is substantiated that Hussein had plans to develop WMDs at the first opportune moment
How much of a chance should we have taken with this guy?
Anyway, if Germany and France supported military action in Feb and March 2003, war would likely have been avoided.