So, where are(were) those WMDs?

[Occhidiangela]

Hi Occhi,

Once again, we are going around in the best of circles ;)

The concept of invading Iraq while in the midst of a *real* war on terror (however mismanaged from the political end) need stronger support than "Saddam is an SOB".  As I pointed out back then, if we're to remove SOBs from power, where do we draw the line?

That Saddam was nasty to his people is indisputable.  Again, in how many countries has this been true?  For that matter, in how many countries is that *still* true?  I can think of a few.

That Saddam *might* someday pose a threat is true.  And any JD (I believe 'youthful offender' is the PC phrase, but I can't keep up with that nonsense) can grow up to be a mass murderer (or even do so before 'growing up').  Preemptive 'punishment' is not only illegal according to our Constitution and the Geneva Convention, it is a fine way to generate fanatical enemies.

That Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN is true.  But that was the UN's problem and ours only within the confines of our cooperation with that body.

The *only* valid reason to overextend our forces, to further bankrupt the country, to alienate the Arab world as well as so many of our erstwhile allies, to split this country into (almost) armed camps would have been 'a clear and present danger' to us or our allies.  The only such danger proposed was the WMD.  The administration's claim that such existed, in spite of the renewed efforts of the UN inspectors, should have been established by intelligence that was nearly 100% certain.  That it wasn't, that the administration pushed for a rapid deployment with imperfect (to be charitable) information when an additional few months would have clarified the question with nothing but Bush's reelection effort suffering is almost inexcusable.  That they did so with no viable plan of occupation or exit strategy is totally inexcusable.

That Bush, the man who brags about his alliteracy (hey, a new word :) ), would do this is no surprise.  Ignorance breeds mistakes.  That all of his staff fell in line with him speaks of massive incompetence or ulterior motives.

Since the invasion, much smoke has been blown up our collective a**es about why we did it.  'Iraqi Freedom'.  Bah.  We had one reason and one only that was valid and legal by international convention to which we had bound ourselves.  And it turns out that that reason is a lie.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59242[/snapback][/right]

The only answer I have yet come up that fits all of the angles, which resembles what Gris posted, in re the "why now" puzzle, is, as I remarked a while back, the belief that 2004 would be lost to the Democrats and that they would not be able to sustain the political assault on the sanctions by our allies and newer, Russians, friends. UN mission would again dissolve, this time for good, and sanctions would be lifted, for good. And the Persian Gulf would return to a very unstable condition. Saddam, being a meglomaniac, or at least delusional in re his role in the Mid East, would still have a case of the a$$ in re the US. No telling what he would or would not do.

That an internal lack of confidence in the other party in the long term, if true, was a prime motivator to action is a scary prospect.

On a related note, a strong Iraq bothers Iran, who we still have no good feelings toward, being that they are state who sponsore anti US and anti Israel Islamic terrorism. No way to work a "deal?" All of a sudden, the mixed signals in 1990, July, jump out as an immense oversight.

So, the real hard question for the historian is: why did the US, after 1991, not work considerably harder to induce Saddam to comply and then rejoin "the light?" Were our diplomats to enamoured of the Saudi King?

Other than his vehement anti Israeli predilections, it might be that Saddam's too difficult to work with, and simply could not be trusted, nor any of his cabal. Of course, Warren Christopher would have been a good secretary of state, had he ever been alive. :P I won't comment on Aunt Bea.

Occhi