This whole WMD discussion (not limited to this thread, but the bigger discussion) has been a classic example of the fubar state of American political discourse -be it in the media or on political message boards. In this sound-bite driven era we tend to focus on the simple minded minutiae rather than the geopolitical strategies being employed behind the scenes.
Rule #1: No one involved in a competition/conflict discusses their strategy publicly (except perhaps, afterwards for posterity).
WMD or no WMD, we were going to take out Saddam.
Here Truebrit will want to pipe up and say "So you admit they lied to us." No, nothing of the sort, TB. Way back when, I read a very good Newsweek article on the decision from a reporter who (IIRC) was in Condoleezza Rice's office when Present Bush walked in and said "F--- Saddam. We're taking him out."
With that decision taken, the talk amongst the administration officials turned to what the primary message would be. They had many angles to choose from:
- 12 UN Resolutions Ignored
A broken Oil-for-Food program that was merely serving to line Saddam's pockets
Past WMD use
Two invasions of neighboring countries
The harboring of known terrorists (see: Abul Abbas)
Training of terrorists (see: Salman Pak)
Support of terrorists (See: Hamas and public payments made to families of suicide bombers)
Acceptance of Al Queda related groups within its borders (see: Ansar al-Islam)
A brutal supression of Shiite and Kurdish rebellion culminating in hundreds of mass grave sites already discovered. (and whose blood has stained our hands)
Brutal torture of Iraqi Olympic atheletes who dared not to win.
Continuous firing of G2A missiles at our pilots patrolling the no fly zone.
Brutal repression of political dissenters. Or, perhaps more accurately, those lacking the proper political assent.
The attempted assassination of a U.S. president
Hey, pick out 1,2,3 of these and throw them out. But everyone agreed with at least one of these points. Saddam=bad. Really bad. No on to the soundbite media.....
According to the Newsweek article, the only thing everyone agreed on was that WMD posed a serious threat. So that's the angle they chose. It was also suitable in that it created the 'clear and present danger'.
Now, do/did they exist? Who knows. The notoriously unreliable (yet sometimes featured on NPR) debka.com suggested before the war that the WMD were moved to Syria before the war. Another report from a supposed bodyguard defector indicated that there was an elaborate machine that could bury itself itself in the desert along with all the WMD inside. This same source said that the palace grounds were paved in glass - under which sharks and other sea creatures lived in plain view of those walking above them.
Yeah, right. Now that we're in the palaces, we don't get any reports of those. I guess the bombs would've messed with the equilibrium a bit, but the resulting dead fish stench surely would've gotten some mention somewhere.
So, yeah. Maybe WMD, maybe no. Saddam was found in a hole only after great effort, and I bet that a buried chemical warhead has a lot more patience. But does it matter? No.
One only has to take a look at what has happened to realize how brilliantly this has been done.
Saddam's out. Every Jihadi in the middle east is trying to get themselves into Iraq or Afghanistan to blow themselves and their fellow Arabs to smithereens instead of on the streets of New York. Before, Afghanstan was the scourge of anyone with a conscience and now it's a hopeful, if a still unstable democracy. Same with Iraq. In Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince Abdulla is waging his own war on the terrorists who are now bombing his own subjects. India and Pakistan are talking peace. The Turks are finding that not helping us with troop movements are not protecting them from terrorist bombings. Iran now finds itself surrounded with U.S. allies (take a look at a map). Oh, and Ghadaffi. How big of a turnaround is that?
It ain't all good, but it is progress.