Forget WMDs - they're not the real reason we went to war

THE sound of chickens coming home to roost fills the air, as the government seeks to counter accusations that the failure thus far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq negates the legitimacy of the war it has just fought there.

Despite the fact that many of those making the loudest noises in this regard would not have supported war on any grounds short of Saddam Hussein setting off a nuke in central London, and could probably have been sidelined by a government still basking in the warm glow of victory, senior ministers went on the propaganda offensive last week, only to emerge from several media encounters looking both patronising and ill-briefed.

On Thursday’s Today programme, John Reid insulted the nation’s intelligence by citing the precedent of the missing millions from the Great Train Robbery. The money was never found, but the crime still happened, he pointed out, and Ronnie Biggs was still guilty as hell. Reid also stressed the difficulty of finding anything, be it a dictator on the run or a chemical weapons dump, in a country the size of France. Look at Northern Ireland, he suggested, where IRA weapons caches had eluded detection for nigh on 30 years. They hadn’t, actually - as was quickly pointed out in the press coverage which followed Reid’s lazy, arrogant performance.

Such clutching at straws reflects the difficulty the government now finds itself in, having alleged the existence in Iraq of chemical and biological weapons, primed for action within 45 minutes according to the Prime Minister himself, as a key plank in its case for war. As invasion approached, Tony Blair recognised the fragility of the WMD case and put more emphasis on the moral arguments against Saddam (his penchant for genocide by poison gas, beheading women, ripping out tongues - that sort of thing).

The coming conflict would be a war of liberation, and not merely a police operation to punish a rogue state in breach of its disarmament obligations. But in hanging so much of its credibility on the alarming threat posed by Saddam’s chemical, biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons, the government left a hostage to fortune behind when it went boldly to war.

Now, weapons of mass destruction may yet be found in Iraq. No one doubts that they were a feature of Saddam’s rule, as was their use against Iranian troops, Kurdish rebels and Iraqi civilians at various times. And it wouldn’t be that difficult to hide a few thousand litres of this or that, even some delivery systems, in a country which is, as they keep telling us, as big as France (although we’re now also being told it’s as big as California, which sounds even more daunting).

Only if you believe the official line that their existence was the main reason why war happened. A few weeks before the conflict began, I argued in this space that neither the elimination of weapons of mass destruction nor the defence of human rights, while worthwhile aims, were sufficiently urgent in themselves to explain Operation Iraqi Freedom. By continuing to insist that they were, Blair and his ministers had left a gaping hole at the heart of the pro-war argument, and the millions who marched against it were filling that vacuum with some very reasonable objections.

If WMDs were all it was about, why on earth not give the inspectors more time before plunging the Middle East, and maybe the world, into chaos? We weren’t proposing to invade North Korea, after all, which had a much more developed WMD capability than Iraq, and an even more bonkers regime threatening to use them.

WMDs, of course, were never what it was about, not really. Saddam’s crimes, and his reluctance to meet the terms of his surrender in 1991, provided ample justification for war, but hardly explained its timing, and the willingness of Bush and Blair to ride roughshod over the opposition of allies such as France and Russia.

To make sense of that, you had to start from the horror of September 11. After this era-defining event, the removal of Saddam had become a pressing strategic necessity in the wider war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, which yesterday claimed dozens more innocent lives in Casablanca. Tolerated for 12 years after the end of the first Gulf conflict, with only sanctions and the occasional bombing mission to remind him that he was still an international pariah, Saddam’s removal had become expedient, as well as legitimate.

In a post-September 11 environment, the West needs to lessen its dependence on Saudi oil, and on the corrupt and deeply unpopular Saudi rulers. If post-Saddam Iraq could act as a beacon for human rights and democratic government in the Middle East, so much the better. But that would be a bonus next to the main prize - the establishment of a strategic bridgehead in the fight against al-Qaeda.

The importance of that bridgehead is already evident. Last week’s bombs in Riyadh signal a major escalation of al-Qaeda’s war, not only against America and Britain, but against the House of Saud itself. The country which gave birth to Osama bin Laden and 15 of the September 11 hi-jackers, and which remains a key source of financial and political support for Islamic terrorism throughout the world, is now the target of that terrorism.

Saudi Arabia, with its super-rich elite and its increasingly agitated ‘Arab street’ demanding a greater share of the oil spoils, could well fall to a Taliban-style regime in the future, at which point the value of a pro-Western Iraq (or an Iraq, at least, which is less anti-West than Saddam’s) will become all too clear.

Having failed to outline this strategic logic from the start, however, the mysterious case of the missing weapons continues to present a problem for the government. Jack Straw sought to draw a line under the issue by suggesting in a BBC interview that the discovery of WMDs was "not crucially important" next to the authority given by Resolution 1441 for intervention. Blair has pointed to the discovery of the graves of thousands of Saddam’s victims as proof that this was indeed a just war. And there are myriad other reasons why, despite the anarchy and chaos of the immediate post-conflict period, the Iraqi people are much better off now than they were before the fall of Saddam’s regime.

But events in Riyadh and Casablanca bring the bigger picture into renewed focus. Al-Qaeda is a real threat, even if Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction weren’t. The sooner our government makes explicit the connection between what has happened in Iraq and what might happen down the road in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, the better.

Two of the dominos have fallen

Afghanistan is just as much a threat to us as it was before and the Taliban and warlords run the country. Iraq is in danger of falling to the Islamic fundamentalists who are far worse of a threat to us than Iraq ever was. Two dominoes may have fallen but their replacements will probably be worse.

As for the supposed lack of WMD's..........doesn't really matter if we find them or not. Why? Saddam already admitted he had them and all we wanted was irrefutable proof that he had destroyed them.

Of course we know he had them. We helped supply them.

"Most of us were just happy that the President was finally going to crush Saddam and occupy Iraq and did not care about WMDs because we knew that it was nothing more than a causus belli, and if the President wanted to sell the threat of WMDs to the world, we were fine with that. We did (and continue to) support military action without neccessarily buying the reason."
Why would you be so eager to support military action without beleiving the reason for it. Do you just like armed conflict? I, for one, want my government to be truthful with me - trust me - not lie to me & expect me to follow blindly.
Fool me once - shame on you; fool me twice - shame on me. I don't like being lied (fibbed) to by anyone, especially my government. If you can accept a liar in the WH just because you like military action, fine, but that sh#t doesn't float for me.

The Taliban is on the run in Afghanistan and about the only thing they control is the camels they screw at night. I believe the warlords grip on power will eventually come to an end as the people of 'Stan begin to enjoy the freedom they now have compared to the freedom (not) they had under Taliban rule, only time will tell. Iraq is still a question mark and we'll just have to wait and see how that works out. If I was a betting man I'd wait to see what happens with the Islamic regime in Iran before I make a bet that Iraq will go to an Islamic/Mullah run government.

Not to mention that given the pressure the administration is under to justify their little war if any evidence had been found there would be a prime time oval office address showing it to the world.

What pressure? From you? I'm sure if they did go on prime time TV with evidence, you and the Radical Left would say it was fake. It's interesting to note the similarities in the anti-government mindset of the Radical Left and the Radical Right.

Forget Worldnet Daily and NewsMax.

It was reporters from the Daily Telegraph that came accross the documentation showing that Iraq's Mukhabarat had had extensive contacts and negotitations with Al Qaeda during the 1990's.

You seem to propose that because Al Qaeda is Islamic fundamentalist and Saddam was a Ba'ath fascist that there is no possibility for cooperation between them.

Yet we live in a world in which Hitler and Stalin signed a nonagresssion pact so they could divide Poland and Bessarabia.

In the Arab world, the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend. You might consider that as a fly in the ointment of your entire chain of reasoning. There is a common enemy that confronted both Al Qaeda and Saddam: the United States (and Israel, of course, but that goes without saying...). It was entirely logical and beneficial to both sides for them to cooperate: the Mukhabarat could provide money and intelligence, and Qaeda could provide dedicated and trained personnel.

We merely struck before the alliance could come to fruition. That was a good thing. We have paid enough of a price in blood to further the cause of waiting for the first blow to land.

Thankfully, we are led by people who refuse to wait.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Yes, it was about WMDs, but that doesn't mean that we have to FIND the WMDs that Saddam had hidden. It was about the fact that Saddam failed to account for the WMDs, as agreed in the original cease fire and as demanded in subsequent UN resolutions. Saddam failed to account for WMDs, failed to allow reasonable inspections, and, in short was too much of a risk and a loose cannon to let continue in his ways. The fact that he was a barbaric dictator, who raped, tortured and killed women and children to achieve his ends was sufficient in itself, in my view, to support our actions. Certainly many of those opposed to war in Iraq were silent when Haiti, Kosovo and Somalia were our targets. Similarly, those who opposed war in Iraq in favor of "more time" for UN inspectors don't seem willing to give coalition forces "more time," which makes their statements about WMDs more than a little suspect.

UN Resolutions? LOL. Do you also think the many UN resolutions against Israel enacted by the that rat-hole debating society should be "enforced" by the U.S?

You indicate that it was proper that we intervened against "dictators" in Haiti (did that and failed), Somalia (did that and failed), and Kosovo (did that and failed). You now have three strikes. Let's hope for the sake of the world that Iraq isn't the fourth. BTW, I was not silent in opposing any of these disasters.

Unlike conservatives, however, I was reasonably consistent in opposing a world policing foreign policy.

Again, there has been no evidence offered to support that, by anyone. I don't care what newspaper says it, I don't believe for a second reporters are being allowed to poke around wherever the hell they like in Baghdad, and I would like to atleast hold onto the belief even if pure fantasy that our inteligence men have atleast a passing clue as to what they are doing. Journalists lie, they lie for further their political agenda, they lie to further their careers, the lie to make a story more interesting. Freepers seem to dismiss an article in it's entirety if they don't happen to like what it says, but if they do like it they propose adding it to the bible.

The terrorists will take support anywhere they can find it, Reagan armed the dudes in Afghanistan to the teeth, the same dudes who wanted to destroy America. I don't know what the hell he was thinking, but whatever

Saddam is a differant character, he is a psycho paranoid, He murders members of his own family who probably love him on the slightest suspicion. He executed officers if they didn't make eye contact with him, he spent most of his day reading about every coupe of the last 3000 years.

Saddam didn't trust those who were closest to him and professed to loving him, there is no way in hell Saddam is going to work with people whos professed goal is to topple his regime.

Hitler and Stalin were differant, but not that differant and their goals were not entirely incompatible. Industrialization and conquest were both the goals of Hitler and Stalin.

But when you come to Ba'athism and Islamic fundementalists, the situation is nothing like it. Bathists want to create a Westernized secular society in the middle east. Iraq in the 1980's was a pretty nice place, you would think you were in Pheonix or Houston.

Islamic fundementalists want to live like cavemen, and they don't just want to live like cavemen themselves, they want everyone in the world to live in cavemen.

Okay, I tried to post to you, but lost my post in the ether....

Right now, I have to move furniture back into my bedroom after a new carpet has been laid down. So I can't dignify your post with a response. However, I will.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

The efforts under the previous administration did meet with mixed (at best) levels of success. (If there are strikes, they weren't against me or the GOP, we weren't "at bat.") That doesn't mean that a true leader should not go in and right wrongs that he finds. I don't know you, so I can't (and wouldn't anyway) comment as to your position, but the rank and file dems in Congress certainly have no basis for argument about actions in Iraq, having voted for the use of force there both during Clinton and Bush admins, and having stood by and either encouraged or tolerated those prior actions. By all accounts people's lives in Iraq are better than during Saddam's rule, although everything is not yet under complete control. It is certainly no "quagmire" as was foretold by many in the democrat ranks and in the media. As far as UN resolutions are concerned, I only note that because the world community seemed united until something had to be done, and then many grow strangely silent and cowardly (or protective of their self-interests in Iraq's oil).

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.