Posted on 05/18/2003 9:25:12 AM PDT by kaylar
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).
But if in the end no weapons are found, does it undermine the case for war?
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.
Not a bigger threat but a higher priority. It is basic military strategy: Depose Saddam first so that we can establish a strong military presence in Iraq. From there we can more effectively combat terrorism in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia (which we will do in due time).
It is simple geography. It is not rocket science.
Furthermore, as much as I would have loved for Bush to nuke every major city in Saudi Arabia following 9/11 it simply was not going to happen.
When I said "nitwit" I was talking about the anti-war, Hollywood crowd.
Unfortunately, Freepers aren't the leaders of Britain and the US. WMD's were a centerpiece of why we invaded (liberated Iraq) according to our leaders. I can never understand why. Why the lie?
The war in Iraq was about politics, The entire appeal of Bush is this wartime president thing he has going for himself, without war he is nothing. He goes back to being the loser he was on September 10th
If this little game doesn't work out the way it was hoped, in place of Iraq your going to end up with another islamic terrorist state in the middle east.
There is a reason why Saddam was so popular back in the 1980's
b) There is something called a feedback loop, it is when stories with absolutly no basis in truth are echoed by the media so often they become accepted as fact. There has NEVER been ANY evidence released showing ANY link between Bin Laden and Saddam. Most of this material comes from the Iraqi opposition for whom the ends justify the means and would say absolutly anything to see military action against Saddam.
There were only ever two Al Qaeda camps in Iraq, and both of them were in 'Kurdistan' an area over which Saddam had absolutly no control, Salman Pak is not an Al Qaeda camp, it was an Iraqi special forces garrison that prior to being bombed to an oblivioin was used for anti-terrorism training.
However, you are stuck in the feedback loop, so you wouldn't know that.
Do you believe everything you're told by all the terrorist gangs or just Al Queda?
Al Queda had one goal: extorting money by terror.
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :
| 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) | ||||
Al Qaeda is made up of Islamic fundementalists, of whom one of their goals is Islamic revolution in Egypt and Iraq.
Saddam is a bathist, The goal of bathism is the secularization and westernization of arab society.
Islamic terrorists consider Bathists to be communists and therefore infidels.
Taliban Afghanistan was the 'perfect society' to Al Qaeda, the goal of Bathism is secularization and westernization.
If you can't figure out the differance, I hope you don't scald yourself when you pour a bath.
They put their holy religious considerations first.
Their recruitment proaganda convinced you of all this- wow!
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.