After months of chest-thumping declarations that weapons would be found, the two giants—the U.S. and the U.K.—have finally admitted that faulty intelligence was to blame. Yet, despite this admission, they continue to insist that invading Iraq was still the right thing to do.
The hunt for Iraq’s WMDs has produced nothing but hot air.
Just yesterday, CIA Director George Tenet stated that the agency never claimed Iraq was an “imminent threat.” This, of course, contradicts the relentless rhetoric leading up to the invasion, where the phrase “grave and gathering danger”was used like a drumbeat to justify war.
For those who still stand by Bush’s and Blair’s after-the-fact justifications, even though no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, I’ve heard a few common arguments—each more flawed than the last:
1. “We can’t really blame them. It was faulty intelligence.”
Wrong!
Hans Blix’s reports provided clear evidence that contradicted the intelligence used to justify war. Even more damning, we now know that neither the CIA nor MI6 had operatives on the ground in Iraq.
So why, then, were Blix’s findings ignored? Why did the march to war continue despite credible doubts?
2. “It’s okay because this was an international effort, and most of the world agreed with it.”
Not quite.
Mr. Bush, please remember that the world is bigger than just the Coalition of the Willing. Every time you claim “global support”, keep in mind that your coalition represented only 10% of the world’s population.
And even if the entire world had agreed, does that somehow make a modern-day lynching acceptable? Civilization should have evolved beyond that.
3. “Saddam had to go. He was evil. If we allowed him to stay in power, he would have become another Hitler.”
If that were truly the case, don’t you think Europeans—who actually suffered under Hitler– would have been the first to sound the alarm?
Yes, Saddam was a dictator, but he was also a has-been. He lacked a powerful army, he had no mass ideological following, and he was isolated even within the Arab and Muslim world. Unlike Hitler, he didn’t have the means to wage a global war, let alone defend himself when attacked.
4. “I don’t like Saddam’s face, and no matter what, I’m glad he’s gone—even if the war was based on false and unjustifiable reasons.”
Well, my friend, if that’s your argument, there’s probably no way to convince you of the magnitude of this wrongdoing.
But remember this: One day, Bush and Blair—or leaders like them—may use the same pretext to invade another country of their choosing.
Pray very hard that it’s not ours.