The Iraq War--update
This is my response to a friend's critique of one of my earlier posts.
To Eric's first point, that there were and are no WMDs in Iraq, no quarrel. The administration was just plain wrong in insisting Saddam had them. In 20/20 hindsight, this was a bad justification for going to war, though at the time it was arguably a reasonable conclusion to make.
Eric's second assertion, that the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda links are hogwash, has more serious problems. What is hogwash is the assertion that the Weekly Standard is the only source still making the case for such links. The Wall Street Journal is one of several others. The idea that this allegation is based on a simple logical fallacy is bunk. There is substantial evidence of direct ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. For instance, evidence Saddam gave at least $300,000 to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's main man in Iraq. For instance, evidence that an Iraqi intel agent named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, just a few months before Atta helped lead the 9/11 attacks against the United States (evidence of which meeting the Czech government possessed, as well). For instance, evidence one of Saddam's Fedayeen named Shakir had contact info for, met with, and aided Al-Qaeda operatives numerous times, and was connected to the '98 embassy bombings, the '00 U.S.S. Coleattack, and the 9/11 attacks. In short, the evidence of a link is there, and it points toward a substantial relationship between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda. It could be interpreted as inconsequential, but, in the interest of national security, is that a responsible way to interpret potential threats? In my own opinion, the only reason we don't have more and better proof of a link is simply the wretched state of U.S. human intelligence assets in the Middle East (which Eric knows about as well as I.)
So much for the only two things Eric thinks had anything to do with why we went to war. But why does he say there were "only two 'real' reasons why people felt justified with going into Iraq?" I don't see much basis for that claim. In any case, my earlier post was about the administration's reasons for the war, not the average under-informed and over-opinionated American Joe Six-pack. The point of my original post was that the administration's pre-war claims, with the exception of WMD, have largely proven to be true.
What I didn't say, and where I have slightly more agreement with Eric, is whether those reasons actually were enough to justify war. On that question, the jury is still out in my mind. It may be that Saddam would have just continued to be the nuisance he'd been the last decade and a half. I'm generally suspicious of nation-building, and making Iraq free, while maybe a good thing, isn't America's primary responsibility and isn't a good reason to put American lives and assets at risk. Why we haven't been consistent in invading other state sponsors of terrorism (like Iran) is a question that lacks a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, taking Saddam out had to have been a big warning to those other state sponsors of terrorism. A lot of people, including the Brits, think it's what made Qaddafi's Libya give up its WMD program and forge new ties with the West.
Strategic policy can't be short-sighted. The Middle East is a big thorn in side of the United States and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the Western world. There are millions of people in the Middle East who violently hate us. In some places they run the country, in others they're just a sizeable minority. Nonetheless, it is in the interest of the United States to deal directly with direct threats to our national security (like Al-Qaeda and its sponsors), and to work in other ways to put peaceful, non-radical people in power elsewhere. Post-Saddam Iraq should be a significant ally, an important first step to peace and stability throughout the region. Qaddafi is opening up. A lot of people in Iran don't support the anti-West, WMD-seeking Islamo-fascist clerical regime, and it may only be a matter of time before they unseat it and a more friendly government comes to power. For those whose job it is to protect the national security of the U.S. and build alliances, it's hard to see those developments as anything but positive.
To Eric's first point, that there were and are no WMDs in Iraq, no quarrel. The administration was just plain wrong in insisting Saddam had them. In 20/20 hindsight, this was a bad justification for going to war, though at the time it was arguably a reasonable conclusion to make.
Eric's second assertion, that the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda links are hogwash, has more serious problems. What is hogwash is the assertion that the Weekly Standard is the only source still making the case for such links. The Wall Street Journal is one of several others. The idea that this allegation is based on a simple logical fallacy is bunk. There is substantial evidence of direct ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. For instance, evidence Saddam gave at least $300,000 to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's main man in Iraq. For instance, evidence that an Iraqi intel agent named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, just a few months before Atta helped lead the 9/11 attacks against the United States (evidence of which meeting the Czech government possessed, as well). For instance, evidence one of Saddam's Fedayeen named Shakir had contact info for, met with, and aided Al-Qaeda operatives numerous times, and was connected to the '98 embassy bombings, the '00 U.S.S. Coleattack, and the 9/11 attacks. In short, the evidence of a link is there, and it points toward a substantial relationship between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda. It could be interpreted as inconsequential, but, in the interest of national security, is that a responsible way to interpret potential threats? In my own opinion, the only reason we don't have more and better proof of a link is simply the wretched state of U.S. human intelligence assets in the Middle East (which Eric knows about as well as I.)
So much for the only two things Eric thinks had anything to do with why we went to war. But why does he say there were "only two 'real' reasons why people felt justified with going into Iraq?" I don't see much basis for that claim. In any case, my earlier post was about the administration's reasons for the war, not the average under-informed and over-opinionated American Joe Six-pack. The point of my original post was that the administration's pre-war claims, with the exception of WMD, have largely proven to be true.
What I didn't say, and where I have slightly more agreement with Eric, is whether those reasons actually were enough to justify war. On that question, the jury is still out in my mind. It may be that Saddam would have just continued to be the nuisance he'd been the last decade and a half. I'm generally suspicious of nation-building, and making Iraq free, while maybe a good thing, isn't America's primary responsibility and isn't a good reason to put American lives and assets at risk. Why we haven't been consistent in invading other state sponsors of terrorism (like Iran) is a question that lacks a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, taking Saddam out had to have been a big warning to those other state sponsors of terrorism. A lot of people, including the Brits, think it's what made Qaddafi's Libya give up its WMD program and forge new ties with the West.
Strategic policy can't be short-sighted. The Middle East is a big thorn in side of the United States and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the Western world. There are millions of people in the Middle East who violently hate us. In some places they run the country, in others they're just a sizeable minority. Nonetheless, it is in the interest of the United States to deal directly with direct threats to our national security (like Al-Qaeda and its sponsors), and to work in other ways to put peaceful, non-radical people in power elsewhere. Post-Saddam Iraq should be a significant ally, an important first step to peace and stability throughout the region. Qaddafi is opening up. A lot of people in Iran don't support the anti-West, WMD-seeking Islamo-fascist clerical regime, and it may only be a matter of time before they unseat it and a more friendly government comes to power. For those whose job it is to protect the national security of the U.S. and build alliances, it's hard to see those developments as anything but positive.
posted by Jeff at 8:35 PM
<< Home