I don't think it is that easy to find out who's building a nuke anymore. North Korea was able to do it, even with plenty of international inspections, without our finding out until they were close to done. Israel was able to hide their program from international inspectors (and the US) until they were done. We didn't predict the India test blast. And in the case of Iraq, undoubtedly our paranoia combined with Saddam's secrecy made it hard to tell. My argument IS heavily influenced by Kenneth Pollack, and I'm no expert on how long this stuff takes. But Saddam had showed in the past that he was willing to do almost anything to build banned weapons; he had successfully crippled the UN inspections before cancelling them altogether; and sanctions just weren't working - massive leaks via the Jordanian and Syrian borders, Security Council-defying commercial flights from all over Europe, plus, of course, the availability of technology not too far away in Pakistan all combined to make the situation dangerous. How dangerous? What should the tipping point have been? At this point it's impossible to make a compelling case that we needed to invade in Spring 2003 versus, say, Fall 2003, or Spring 2004. But I continue to believe that had we not invaded, we would not have been able to acheive confidence that Saddam didn't have an active nuclear program. And if, in the future, he took another aggressive action like the invasion of Kuwait, or of Kurdistan, we would have to assume that he had the nukes (or else he wouldn't take the action). And if we assumed that...then given the threat a nuclear strike on Gulf oil production would pose -- a threat that will be MUCH greater in 15 or 20 years as other sources of oil begin to dry up -- a pre-emptive first strike would be the logical US military response. Pollock _doesn't_ say that -- no one does. But that's why I supported the war.
Now, as to the Bush prosectuion of said war -- it was absolutely terrible from a diplomatic and post-war planning standpoint. I absolutely agree. It has ended up being much more expensive in blood and treasure than it needed to be.
The whole "WMD" was a canard from my perspective -- the bio and chem weapons were never a big threat, at least not in theater as battlefield weapons.
But I do think that Bush sincerely believed that somehow at some point Saddam might hand these weapons over to terrorists who might deliver them on US soil. I think Cheney egged him on -- whether Cheney ever sincerely believed that or not.
I also firmly believe that Al Gore would have pursued the exact same policy -- although the implementation would have been better.
What are the alternative scenarios in hindsight? Blix inspects for 3 or 4 years, doesn't find anything, sanctions continue, Iraqis starve, then what? Do we really think Saddam would have given up his drive to be the Arab superhero? Would have stopped threatening Israel? Do we think Al-Quaeda would have been somehow deterred by a continued sanctions and inspection policy? Would Iran and Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been deterred? Or, more likely, would they have concluded that the West (I don't think radical islamists observe the fine distinctions Chirac hopes they do) had no appetite for conflict, and have continued to wage terror attacks against Israel, overtly, and against the US, through Al-Qaeda, covertly?
|
Now, as to the Bush prosectuion of said war -- it was absolutely terrible from a diplomatic and post-war planning standpoint. I absolutely agree. It has ended up being much more expensive in blood and treasure than it needed to be.
The whole "WMD" was a canard from my perspective -- the bio and chem weapons were never a big threat, at least not in theater as battlefield weapons.
But I do think that Bush sincerely believed that somehow at some point Saddam might hand these weapons over to terrorists who might deliver them on US soil. I think Cheney egged him on -- whether Cheney ever sincerely believed that or not.
I also firmly believe that Al Gore would have pursued the exact same policy -- although the implementation would have been better.
What are the alternative scenarios in hindsight? Blix inspects for 3 or 4 years, doesn't find anything, sanctions continue, Iraqis starve, then what? Do we really think Saddam would have given up his drive to be the Arab superhero? Would have stopped threatening Israel? Do we think Al-Quaeda would have been somehow deterred by a continued sanctions and inspection policy? Would Iran and Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been deterred? Or, more likely, would they have concluded that the West (I don't think radical islamists observe the fine distinctions Chirac hopes they do) had no appetite for conflict, and have continued to wage terror attacks against Israel, overtly, and against the US, through Al-Qaeda, covertly?
- big jimmy 9-23-2003 1:58 am