Pavel
Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005 From: Washington Status: offline
|
I saw the invasion comeing, I'm just saying the WMD pretex was one that was at least feasiable to many folks out there. It wasn't like Kosovo where we went in for Humanitarian reasons (so we only ignore most genocides), or the No-Fly zones (by randomly blowing up SAM sites and not allowing Iraq's limited Air Force to fly in some places, somehow this was supposed to lead to Saddam's downfall), or maybe just the whole intervention in Bosnia too (hey! dropping bombs will solve hundreds of years of ethnic strife!). Saddam haveing WMDs was a realisitc threat, one that had been highlighted by the Clinton admin from day one. What happens from there is a classic bit of how intelligence goes wrong. Everyone "knows" Saddam is hiding weapons. Thus anything that looks like it could maybe sorta kinda be involved with Saddam fowarding such a program becomes plausible or some form of evidence. The presense of this "evidence" backs up the false conclusion, in a case of circular logic. I'm pretty sure without WMD as a cause we'd have gone to war eventually. Saddam was too fond of playing close to the edge, and unlike Clinton, Bush was willing to meet him at the edge and shove him off. I intially believed the WMD evidence as one, I was all of 19, and had been hearing for the past 8 or so years of my life, that Saddam had WMDs and wanted to use them on me, two, I was hearing it from Colin Powell, one of the few people in civil goverment I trusted. It was also easy to believe that the UN weapons inspectors couldn't find their own asses with a map and a flashlight given the UN's past successes (go Rwanda and Sierra Leone!). You can't just pretend like every thing was crystal clear, and obvious from day one.
|