The Case of the Missing WMDs

It seems the anti-Bush crowd has found a new way to attempt to discredit Bush and the war in Iraq. This time, it's the missing WMDs. After the swift liberation of Iraq and the worries of the peaceniks proven wrong, one would figure the anti-war crowd would finally concede. Somehow, the fact that WMDs haven't been found - yet - is supposed to prove the war as unjustified, and make Bush and Tony Blair liars. First the protestors predicted a messy quagmire of a war where thousands of lives would be lost. Massive casualties of both Iraqi civilians and American troops were predicted. As the war drew to a close, they turned to the looting as proof that the US had unleashed chaos and anarchy in Iraq.

After that argument lost interest, the protestors pulled yet another one of their contradictory arguments. They claimed that the US has left a power vacuum in Iraq, leaving Iraq vulnerable to further disorder, and possibly a regime worse than Saddam Hussein. These were valid concerns, except that many of these people also called for the US to pull out of Iraq and hand reconstruction to the UN and Iraqi people. It'd be foolish to give immediate control back to the Iraqis right now, in the current state of Iraq. Doing so would only let theocratic Shiites. Coalition troops carried out this war, so why abandon it now and listen to outsiders? Let the US be in full responsibility, so that in decade or two, if something worse does arise, the US can be held accountable. This might be why those who opposed the war, now demand a multilateral reconstruction, or immediate Iraqi control. They want reconstruction to be botched, so in the end they can act as if they were right all along.

Their latest attempt to discredit the liberation of the Iraqi people comes from the missing WMDs. Some have even called for the impeachment and investigation of Bush and Blair!

Excuse me? The debate was never whether Iraq has these weapons. This was fact, acknowledged by even France, Germany, and the rest of the UN. It is a documented fact that he had WMD during the Gulf War, and had them as reported by UN inspectors until 1998. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had confirmed that he possessed, and had repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons. There's no doubt he had these WMDs. Since the Gulf War, UN inspectors have confiscated nearly 700 tons of chemical weapons and agents, nearly 50 Scud missiles, and many traces of biological and chemical agents. Had UNSCOM and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors not closed the operation of Hussein's nuclear facilities, Israel not bombed one of Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981, and the Gulf War not occurred, it is highly probable that Iraq would have nuclear weapons today. Prior to being halted in 1998, all previous inspections for these weapons had not been effective; inspectors had been frequently blocked and denied access.

The debate to go to war was never about determining if Hussein did possess these weapons. Based on these past UN inspections, and his bold use of WMDs against the Kurds, Shiites, and Iranians, the world knew he possessed WMDs. Instead, the war was about the proper way to disarm Hussein, and to ensure he wasn't building new weapons. It was also about the proper way to punish Hussein for violating some 17 UN resolutions, including Resolution 1441, passed unanimously in November 2002 by all 15 members of the Security Council. Peaceniks seem to have forgotten this fact, as if his possession of WMDs was uncertain all along.

Iraq, shortly before and after the Gulf War, even admitted to having a large cache of various WMDs. Hussein soon went on to claim that he had destroyed most of his weapons, when threatened with UN inspections. If Hussein was honestly disarming Iraq and destroying his WMDs, then why did he refuse inspections, and refuse the UN to oversee the destruction of his weapons programs?

Secondly, WMDs were never the sole reason for going to war. This is obvious by looking back at the speeches of Bush and Colin Powell. It had been clearly stated that the liberation and freedom of the Iraqi people from a repressive regime, and Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism were key factors. Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq will open the floodgates in the Middle East. Creating a model nation will be a tremendous influence for the surrounding Islamic dictatorships. This liberation of Iraq, and the hordes of Iraqis cheering Coalition troops was not an unexpected or lucky result that justifies the war in hindsight. The US has not used this to turn our minds away from the WMDs. It was one of the main goals from the beginning.

So where are the WMDs? They could still be hidden in Iraq's vast desert. Or, Saddam could have destroyed them during the ample time he had while the Coalition was presenting its case for war. This however, seems unlikely, for revealing this to the world could have easily averted a war. Or, the WMDs may be well out of Iraq by now - into Syria, or perhaps Iran. They could have easily been smuggled out of Iraq along with Iraqi weapons facilities and scientists. Either way, the WMDs exist and the war was never about determining if Hussein had any WMDs - this is undebatable. Nor does this discredit the new found freedom of Iraq from 30 years of Baathist oppression.

This "war of preemption", was really a war of liberation, and a war to disarm Hussein's already documented WMDs. With reconstruction underway, hopefully Iraq will turn out to be a model of democracy in a region so plagued with Islamic fundamentalism

No critic-proof way of invading Iraq should tell you something.

No, it shouldn't. The morality of a given situation is not determined by whether Everyone Agrees With It. In fact the two have nothing to do with each other.

There was no critic proof way of invading Poland by Germany in the late thirties

And, there was no critic-proof way of resisting Germany in the late thirties, either. Should that "tell me something"? Hell no.

The point being that every action has its critics. Critics are not always right. They can even be completely wrong.

no critic-proof way of destroying the Twin Towers in 9/11.

no critic-proof way of responding by attacking Afghanistan... (there were protests, if you've forgotten). Face it, whether there are critics of an action tells us NOTHING about whether it's right or wrong.

These were all acts of agression justified by the logic of the individuals that committed them.

Yes, and sometimes the logic is correct, sometimes not.

When the logic is rationalized by misleading the public

Who misled the public? About what? (keep in mind that the only "the public" I care about in this context are US citizens..)

If you cannot make a reasoned argument for your actions and have to rely on mistruths to make your case,

Which mistruths? Name them.

It is going to take a pretty good period of time for Bush and his entourage, plus some honesty, to regain the trust of the public, here and overseas.

(a) the public "here" doesn't seem to mind all that much. (b) who the F cares about the public "overseas"? Bush is President of the U.S., not "overseas".

A direct apology

for what?

It seems to be a given that we had to invade Iraq.

Well, in the sense that our Commander-in-Chief seems to have made the determination that this was a necessity, yes.

. If they had no WMD's,

Who says they had no WMD?

what would have been the logic?

Oh, hypothetically, you mean. Well I believe it's well-known that our leadership has an approach to the war on terror (remember this "terror" stuff?) which partially involves removing a dictatorial regime in the Middle East and trying to help a more or less free society grow there.

Did we have to go because we disliked Saddaam?

Not "have to".."want to" maybe

Did we have to go because we wanted to kill some of the Iraqi people?

No, it's obvious that we wanted to kill as few Iraqi people as possible. Fewer than Saddam does, for example.

Did we have to go because Iraq was a danger to our country?

Our C-in-C seems to have thought so.

What is the reason?

ask the C-in-C, he explained it many times. If you don't like his decisions/strategy for the war on terror, you can vote against him next time, of course. be my guest

I just cannot understand the logic of defending a war based on mistruths.

what "mistruths" were those again?

No indeed, the real debate was over those weapons posed a threat requiring us to go to war. We could have continued our policy of boxing Iraq in at far less cost and risk. We chose to go to war and now we are stuck nation building unless we jump ship and let the country turn into a terrorist haven.

Oh puhleeze.... Iraq was well on it's way to becoming a terrorist haven before we invaded. We have set that back, which is a win for the US. Iraq containment m*a*y have been cheaper in the short term financially, but in the long term, it would have been more costly to us and the world because of damage to the economy and the compounding effects on the "maintenance" cost over time. A free trading, non-threatening Iraq will benefit the world and our economy. In your "zero-sum" type cost analysis, you are neglecting the increased economic activity that will offset the war cost.

Endless inspections only allow(ed) Iraq to continue to play the shell game with themselves in charge. It would have continued until they managed to slip a chemical, bio, or nuke agent out and would have been used against us by one of those terror organizations that WERE using Iraq as Afghanistan-II. WE are now in charge, and the shell game now has a limited life. We will find what they are hiding because we are actually looking for it as opposed to Blix and his blind eye approach.

Since the Terror camps were building and the WMD's (which you seem to think existed also) were being moved around or developed, it seems doing nothing but containment would have had significantly MORE risk and $ cost to the USA than containment in the long run.

[[poison in Euphrates] It's evidence that they had them. Which was the issue.] No, the issue was whether he still had them and whether they were a threat to us.

I'm no math professor but by my count you have listed two (2) issues.

1. did he have them

2. "were they a threat to us" in a sense which militates for an armed response from us

Now, issue 2. was ALREADY DECIDED a long time ago. October, if I recall correctly, when OUR CONGRESS voted to grant Bush War Powers. They made their vote, based on whatever they saw and didn't see at the time, and they voted. That's a done deal.

What I was talking about was "the issue" which, it seems, some people are getting their panties in a bind over: namely, was the "justification" for war (in front of the UN) wrong. But the only thing that justification required was for Saddam to be in violation of Resolution XYZ (1441, whatever). And, he was. If you don't want to use the "poison in the Euphrates" example let's just use the "drone found by Blix" example. That's enough.

Everybody aknowledges he had lots in the past and probably still had some.

Apparently, they don't "acknowledge" that, otherwise why is there this criticism for not finding them and thereby proving they were there?

I'm glad to see you've abandoned your "if an action has critics it must be wrong" silliness. Good for you! :-)

Most of your argument is spin control. In order to legitimize your argument you twist rather than deny.

These are useless sentences. Where's the substance?

The statement: "What was that again" pretty well sums up your argument and reasoning.

huh?

You know what the mistruths and exaggerations were.

No, I don't. Tell me. If you can.

It does you very little good to try to win an agrument by ignoring the issue and concentrating on word play.

I'm not.

I ask again: "Where are the WMD's" that Bush stated were the reason we had to go to war to eliminate.

Actually I've looked at all your posts on this thread and that's the first time you've asked this (so you're not asking "again"). On a similar note I can't figure out who you're quoting. But very well.

You ask me, Where are the WMD? Here's the answer: I don't know and I would like to find out. In particular I'd like to keep that dangerous stuff out of the wrong hands.

Um, so what's your point?

"Where are the WMD", like the rest of your post, is not an argument for anything. It's not the same thing as saying "there were no WMD" for example, because as you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think you are underestimating the risks of intervention. Saddam's regime was stable and ruthless which kept lawless zones from developing. Saddams shiite slums may contain many would-be terrorists but they were contained and disarmed. Contrast that to fundamentalist slums in other Arab countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) where the police don't dare to go except for a quick in-and-out raid. And when they do that they find all sorts of weapons and explosives.

We are not obligated or responsible for enforcing U.N. resolutions. Our defense is for defending us not the U.N.'s existence or effectiveness.

Apparently, they don't "acknowledge" that, otherwise why is there this criticism for not finding them and thereby proving they were there?

I shouldn't have said "everybody". I disagree with people arguing there are no WMD, because I think they will ultimately be proven wrong. I also disagree with people who think Saddam's WMD were a threat to us. As for the wimps in Congress who ceded war powers to president, I don't think that was done only using objective evaluations of the threat. Mostly it seems there was political pressure enhanced by several stories about WMD just before the vote. They turned out to be rubbish (e.g. aluminum tubes, buying uranium in Africa, etc), but they had the desired effect.

"...because as you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I keep hearing this koan-like statement. It's not true. Consider this counter-example:

- I suspect that my kid is smoking dope (because of that damn rap music he listens to). To prove my hunch, I search the house from top to bottom. I find no stash. While he's asleep, I take a hair sample and send it to a lab. The test comes back negative. I hire a team of private eyes to follow him 24/7. They find nothing.

There is an absence of evidence here. If this does not, in addition, constitute "evidence of absence", what would? What further evidence would be required to demonstrate that my son is not smoking dope, the testimony of an omniscient being?

I am _not_ suggesting that the above scenario is in any way analagous to the hunt for WMD. My point is that the absence-of-evidence talisman is bunk. I suspect that this silly tongue-twister was initially coined with the intention of inducing cerebral paralysis, thereby nipping discourse in the bud. To that sordid end it has worked wonders.

Part of the problem is that this reasoning could be used in defense of utterly absurd positions:

- I contend that purple crows exist. Since no one has ever seen such crows and ornithologists swear they do not exist, I will reluctantly grant that there is an absence of evidence for my contention. But as Rumsfeld and everybody else keeps telling us "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

This expression is not one of logic's Ten Commandments and has no place in geopolitical discourse. We could perhaps ask "At what point does an absence of evidence become evidence of absence?" but then we're doing conceptual analysis and might as well tackle the all-time gem "Is the difference between a difference of degree and a difference of kind a difference of degree or a difference of kind?" I think both questions are in the same ballpark regarding their practical application.

[absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."] I keep hearing this koan-like statement. It's not true.

Yes it is. For example, right now I have no tangible evidence whatsoever that the moon exists (it being daytime where I live, I don't live near the sea to be able to observe tides, I don't have photos of the moon as my PC background or on my wall somewhere, etc.) Shall I start to doubt the moon's existence, then?

That is sophistry.

I will grant, I suppose, that it's conceivable one can construct detailed, complicated examples where Absence Of Evidence seems to legitimately throw more weight behind the "It's Absent" theory. Presumably, that is what you are about to do in your post. Sigh.

P.S. What is "koan-like"?

While he's asleep, I take a hair sample and send it to a lab. The test comes back negative.

Sorry, you screwed up, and so early on too. This isn't an "absence of evidence"; an "absence of evidence" would exist if you had never been able to get your hands on a hair sample in the first place. What you've got here is positive evidence that his system has been clean from dope for the past X days... (that's what such hair tests tell you, as I understand them).

I hire a team of private eyes to follow him 24/7. They find nothing.

Also not an "absence of evidence". An "absence of evidence" would exist if you had no idea what he was doing during certain parts of the day. Here, you've got PIs observing his behavior "24/7". If that's really true you can actually have positive eyewitness testimony to statements like "he definitely did not light up in the past X days".

I am _not_ suggesting that the above scenario is in any way analagous to the hunt for WMD.

Good.

My point is that the absence-of-evidence talisman is bunk.

First it was "koan-like", now it's a "talisman"?? Couldn't you just use "cliche" like a normal person? ;-)

Anyway, it's not "bunk". Your examples are.

Part of the problem is that this reasoning could be used in defense of utterly absurd positions:

That's true and no one, least of all me, would deny that.

This expression is not one of logic's Ten Commandments and has no place in geopolitical discourse.

I don't know whether we're participating in "geopolitical discourse" here, whatever that is, but it does have a place in a discussion where one side is acting like a proposition (Iraq had no WMD) has been proven.

I think both questions are in the same ballpark regarding their practical application.

Very well. I'll make a note of that in my records. (rolls eyes)

So, you think Iraq had no WMD, or not?

For example, right now I have no tangible evidence whatsoever that the moon exists...Shall I start to doubt the moon's existence, then?

Specious. To doubt that the moon exists you would need to question either the veracity of your memory or whether nature will continue to work the way it has in the past. Theoretically you can doubt both, but I don't think you can really doubt them. In place of "the moon" substitute "Bigfoot", "Zeus", "ghosts", "extraterrestrial visitors" and you not only can doubt their existence, you should - given the dubious evidence. Should we remain agnostic about Zeus & Bigfoot because new evidence could come in? It's a fundamental mindset: no evidence for X = don't believe X. Some of us go through life like this (or at least aspire to - it depends a great deal on how one defines "evidence" and there are some beliefs we're hard-wired to have).

A koan is a puzzling, paradoxical statement used in Zen Buddhism to snap the student out of his rational ways of thought (What is the sound of one hand clapping?) The Absence of Evidence line struck me as being designed to obfuscate, not clarify. It isn't some Universal Logical Truth, though that's the implication. And it isn't a cliche - yet.

...it does have a place in a discussion where one side is acting like a proposition (Iraq had no WMD) has been proven.

This proposition can never be proven, only disproven - very easily. But the more we try to disprove it and fail the more reasonable it becomes to abandon agnosticism and add WMD to the Bigfoot/Zeus category.

So, you think Iraq had no WMD, or not?

They certainly did at one time. Did they recently have massive stockpiles? My fingers are crossed. For one simple reason I hope not: If they did, and we can't find them now, one very likely explanation is that someone else has them.

I tend to think that Iraq did/does have chemical weapons given their history, but how does having chem suits and atrophine prove anything? The US also carries the same, does that prove the US intends to use chemical weapons? No, it simply means they think the enemy might.

It is circumstantial evidence.

The difference between the US having them and Iraq having them ready to use is that the US had them ready to use because we were at war with Iraq, who was known to have chem/bio weapons.

The same conclusion cannot be drawn by US having them because the idea that Iraq had them ready to use because they believed that we would use chem/bio against them is not believable because it was clear that the US had no intention of using chem/bio weapons.

So for Iraq to have them at the ready was because they were prepared to use chem/bio weapons, not because anyone seriously thought that they may have to protect themselves against us using them.

You have a point. Looks like both our examples were screwed up :)

[one side is acting like a proposition (Iraq had no WMD) has been proven.] This proposition can never be proven, only disproven - very easily.

Agreed. But one side is acting like it has been proven, which was my point.

But the more we try to disprove it and fail the more reasonable it becomes to abandon agnosticism and add WMD to the Bigfoot/Zeus category.

No argument there, actually. And I suppose reasonable people can disagree about how long we should wait before clicking the stopwatch on our agnosticism, but to me, two chaotic months is a ridiculously short time. And keep in mind WMD and Bigfoot/Zeus are in two different categories; we do have reasonably trustworthy (perhaps not 100% so) positive evidence that the former existed at some time. The theory "WMD are gone" requires some explanation as to what happened to them / where they went; the theory "Bigfoot doesn't exist" requires no such.

Did they recently have massive stockpiles? My fingers are crossed. For one simple reason I hope not: If they did, and we can't find them now, one very likely explanation is that someone else has them.

Agreed.

For the record, I don't believe they necessarily had "massive stockpiles" per se. But some kind of weapons program, sure.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)