Is WMD really the deciding issue in the Iraq war?

Personally no amount of NBCs in Iraq would convince me that the war was good for me; Australia is so far away that the fallout would have dissipated before reaching me, and the destruction of the US and continental Europe by an immense and overwhelming Iraqi nuclear stockpile would merely remove trade rivals.

However on a less flippant note I feel that a proven ability to actually use the weapons is more important than the size of the stockpile, although the stockpile is still important. For example the discovery of ICBMs or anything with a range which could reach beyond the Middle East (anything shorter than that and only low-yield weapons could be used due to prevailing winds and weather patterns). They would also need to be loaded with NBC warheads and primed to fire on short notice. Anything which took longer than a few hours to prime would be easy to spot via satellite and human intelligence and stop with either cruise missiles or an early counter-strike, and would therefore be a poor threat to say the least.

If there was enough WMD, or sufficiently advanced weapons programs, to show that sanctions were not stopping Hussein from developing and/or manufacturing weapons, then I would say the war was justified.

The complete absence of weapons and the primitiveness of Hussein's weapons programs means (to me) that the old Clinton/Bush I policy of containment was sufficient to keep Hussein from becoming a threat, and therefore, the old policy should have continued (perhaps with some minor modifications).

"and the destruction of the US and continental Europe by an immense and overwhelming Iraqi nuclear stockpile would merely remove trade rivals. "

A disheartening, if sadly characteristic, statement...

"For example the discovery of ICBMs or anything with a range which could reach beyond the Middle East "

Israel is in the Middle East, as is Kuwait, but the world had no problems with striking him to protect them previously.... Now, I suppose, self-defense is the only just cause for war. I hope we remember this during the next big European war.

My oil supply doesn't come from the MIddle East, and the bones thrown to my country from our involvement in Iraq have been meager to none - a dodgy and extremely ambiguous free trade agreement, a discount on tanks that aren't suited to any sort of deployment outside of grasslands/desert, a personal friendship with a President who might not even be there by the end of the year and the enmity of many in my own region.

In realpolitik terms Iraq was a mistake for Australia, not a necessity, as the US would have invaded anyway. For everything we gained we increased our own personal danger. If this was a question focused solely on the US, then I apologise for corrupting your arguments, but I don't accept that WMDs in Iraq is necessarily a terrible thing for my country (as Australia exported grain there in vast amounts, Saddam wouldn't immediately consider a weakling like Australia a threat or a foe had we not invaded).

The survival of Israel doesn't weigh heavily on my mind, nor does that of the region. In any event Saddam would be foolish to launch weapons at Israel, especially as he knew that they too had nuclear arms.

"In any event Saddam would be foolish to launch weapons at Israel, especially as he knew that they too had nuclear arms."

and yet he did during the first gulf war...

"The survival of Israel doesn't weigh heavily on my mind, nor does that of the region."

'nuff said.

I wrote an article awhile back that listed a bunch of articles I wrote well BEFORE we went into Iraq arguing why we needed to go in:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=14114

WMD stockpiles were not one of the reasons.

What I dislike about the stockpile revisionism is that it's so disengenous. Are we to believe that if only we had found tons of Sarin gas or VX nerve agent in Iraq that the anti-war left would have somehow agreed that it was a good thing we went in? Of course not. They would have latched ont something else.

The people who yell loudest about the WMD stockpiles are the same people who were arguing that it was about the oil or claiming there'd be a half million casaulties or some other nonsense. They were against it before and they're still against it.

Which is their right. It only bugs me when they start to try to decide why we supported it (i.e. the other half of the population).  As tempted as I am to write articles claiming that the left only opposed the war because they are myopic little fools, I don't. Similarly, I would appreciate it if they don't claim we were somehow misled into supporting the war for reasons we never considered important.

I've posted my feelings on this in other threads. I do believe it's backwards to say the anti war people think the war was unjustified because of the lack of WMD. The truth is that WMD was the stated reason for going in. A subtle difference. Anyhoo, as I've posted in other threads: we've seen the UN speeches, the State of Union and British dossier, it's there for all to see that the stated reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with regime change or humaitarian aid, but rather that Iraq was threatening imminent attack, had the intent to atttack, and the means to attack.

When Bush asked other countries to join the coalition, the stated reasons were that Iraq was an imminent threat and they posessed massive stockpiles of WMDs including a nuclear program. This despite a decade of sanctions and no-fly zones within their own borders and intense inspections. Bush did not say "He's a tyrant, let's change the regime". He misled not only the American people but the rest of the world. International cooperation, whether through the UN or informally, lends legitimacy to a war; this is a basic tenet of Just War Doctrine. Dishonesty is not a good basis for international cooperation.

Blair and Bush have been backpeddling all week, with Blair conceding that proof of WMD may never be found and Bush defending the war as just, in spite of a Congressional report slamming CIA intelligence and the Bush Administration's proclivity to take the most dubious of information in the most negative possible connotation in order to spin their way toward justifying a war on Iraq. "The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons — were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday"
Link

The truth is that WMD was the stated reason for going in

WMD generically? There is a difference between WMD stockpiles and WMD programs.  Saddam had WMD programs.  I felt vindicated by the Kaye report. I was never concerned about stockpiles of anthrax or whatever and neither were most people who followed this stuff.

Just because you keep repeating the same stuff over and over doesn't make it true.

But thanks for sharing the Canadian view on things. I wasn't aware Canada was involved in Iraq in any way.

Did you read what Madine wrote or did you just cut and paste "standard anti-Bush response #1262".  He asked a specific question which you just side-stepped to toss in your usual opinion of why you think the US went in.

Given the millions of Americans who still support why we went in, the WMD stockpile argument doesn't hold much water.

But thanks for sharing the Canadian view on things. I wasn't aware Canada was involved in Iraq in any way.

There are 32 countries in the Bribealition - sorry, coalition, representing about a billion people, a small percentage of the world's population of 6 billion+. Public opinion across the world is generally against the invasion of Iraq and is split in America. So if it's OK with you, we, the majority of the people in the world, would like to participate in the debate as it pertains issues such as WWIII, nuclear winter, etc. that may directly affect us.

Well Canada I assume counts itself in the Cowardlition then?  I care about Canada's opinion about the same as I would any other US state.

The "Bribealition" includes these members of the G8:

1) USA
2) UK
3) Japan
4) Italy

All of which are richer than Canada. 

Plus you have Australia, South Korea (also richer than Canada), and most of Europe other than France, Germany, and Belgium (and a couple of others).

Most of the other remotely major countries didn't care particularly much (India and China for instance are relatively neutral).

jon stewart made a good point a few weeks ago on the daily show.

paraphrasing from memory:
"1. has wmd's
2. anti-american rhethoric
3. totalitarian dictatorship
4. ties to al queda

you can't tell what country i just described."

a discount on tanks that aren't suited to any sort of deployment outside of grasslands/desert

What sort of terrain were you expecting to deploy them to? The ocean?

a proven ability to actually use the weapons is more important than the size of the stockpile

So you are convinced it would be 100% impossible for terrorists to smuggle chem/bio weapons into Australia?

...the old Clinton/Bush I policy of containment was sufficient to keep Hussein from becoming a threat, and therefore, the old policy should have continued (perhaps with some minor modifications).

In 1998, Clinton's policy for Iraq became regime change.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

CNN December 1998

Madine:

What sort of terrain were you expecting to deploy them to? The ocean?

No. I can't imagine Australia ever deploying tanks unless the northern coast was overwhelmed, in which case we wouldn't be able to beat the Americans anyway (noone else has the transports or the supply capabilities to attack us). We've never ever sent heavy vehicles overseas, so there is no rational reason for having M1A1 Abrams tanks anyway. The terrain in any case is far better suited to aircraft as an opponent would be unlikely to be able to transport heavy vehicles through jungles. If an aggressor came from the south it would be all over before tanks could even be deployed; the loss of Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra would neatly cripple the defence and food supply of most of the country.

So you are convinced it would be 100% impossible for terrorists to smuggle chem/bio weapons into Australia?

Of course not, but they are unlikely to originate from Iraq - far more likely sources are Southeast Asian or North Asian, like North Korea and thefts from US bases in the Phillipines. Terrorists in the Middle East would almost certainly target the US or Europe over Australia for political and logistical reasons.

You do know they make airplanes right? Australia is a lot closer to Iraq than the US was to Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

Yes, but Australia isn't as significant a target. Noone cares enough to attack - it'd be like someone attacking Denmark for its government's position on the war on terror. Foreign apathy is one of a "middle power"'s greatest defences.

Australians were targeted already attacked in Indonesia just a year or so ago was it not? 

Depends who you quote - the actual trigger-men (to use the cliche) claimed they were aiming at Americans and were disappointed with the low US citizen deathtoll. But according to most of the authorities (ie Indonesian and Australian) during confessions they claimed the attacks were aimed at Australians. Some Indonesian nationals and cynics also claimed it was the CIA, but I think we can safely say that that's a "wacko theory".

In any case Jemaah Islamiyah (and more particularly the cell linked to Hambali and the Tarbiyah Islamiah Luqmanul Hakiem where the cells leaders and family developed their plans) were/are only vaguely linked to al'Qaeda according to independent sources. These links to al'Qaeda however would not have given access to Iraqi NBCs in any event; despite the recorded attempts of Osama and Saddam to forge an alliance of convenience, it was widely reported that they hated each other and couldn't get along. Therefore even this link to Middle Eastern terrorists only became likely to get its hands on NBCs after the fall of Saddam, not before.

I think suffice to say that Australia has been targeted by terrorists.  It's not safe. And these were Islamic militants which originates from the middle east. Wasabism in action.

It could be said that I oppose the war in Iraq and it could also be said I would support it if WMD stockpiles had been found. Of course the reality is that things are a bit more complicated. I initially supported an invasion of Iraq on what was the main case for war. That weapons stockpiles existed and could be used at a moments notice. I never trusted these statements coming from Bush, Cheney or Rumsefield but when moderates like CIA Director Tenet and Colin Powell backed up the assersitions I was swayed.

It's not that I ever feared an attack against America using these weapons. I already knew that Saddam had no friendly ties with anti-American terrorist groups like Al-Qada. In fact Al-Qada and Saddam had been bitter enemies since before the first Gulf War. But I did know that Saddam had ties to Hamas in supporting the families of suicide bombers. So unlike the Australian I feared for Israel, or more, I feared what Israel may do in response to a chemical attack. You have to remember that at this time strife in Israel and Palestine had been higher than in many years and Sharon was showing little restraint in his retaliations. So yeah I advocated war and was ready to accept that good people would die in the act. But leaving chemical weapons in the hands of a madman could be far more costly.

The initial battles went better than expected and for awhile I could actually watch Bush give a speech and occasionally nod in agreement. Then the occupation began. Over the next month it became clear that our troops were horribly ill prepared for an occupation mission. Against all evidence the administration continued to insist that everything was going to be peachy-keen. Meanwhile the stockpiles and labs that the adminstration claimed they knew existed and where they were (Powell had the satelite photos to prove it) never showed. The main rationale for me supporting this war and the botched occupation to follow, weapons stockpiles that could be used at a moments notice to inflare a greater middle-east conflict, was totally bogus. Weapons "programs" do not justify war. Especially when key ingrediants to create the final product could not be obtained because of sanctions.

Had I know weapons programs did not exist I would never have supported the war. On the other hand if the capability to deploy chemical weapons had been proven as fact after the initial invasion I would still support the decision to go in, although I would no longer support the way the occupation is being handled.

To clear up a few things before I see more of the cookie-cutter partisian responses. Bill Clinton supported regime change but that isn't defined as an immediate invasion without provaction. John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but he did not have the same intellgence Bush had and actually Bush has some control over how much intelligence Congress gets access to. On top of that Kerry voted with the promise that the administration would exhaust all diplomatic means and allow the inspectors to complete thier investigation. Finally I do believe Kerry would do a better job managing the occupation. The military spending package Kerry's vote against the $87b military spending package had no effect on the reality on the ground. The no vote was a vote against the way the occupation was being managed and the fat amount of pork contained in that package. Kerry has real experience leading and can surround himself with good people (Clark for Defense Secratary!).

That weapons stockpiles existed and could be used at a moments notice.

I don't recall anyone saying that Iraq's weapons were ready to be used at a moments notice.

Bill Clinton supported regime change but that isn't defined as an immediate invasion without provaction.

Regime change does not equal invasion, but it is certainly not containment either. While Clinton didn't conduct a full-scale invasion, he did launch military strikes against Iraq.

John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but he did not have the same intellgence Bush had

What did Bush know that Kerry didn't that was important?

The excuse making for Kerry is pretty amazing. If there is some intelligence Kerry didn't have about Iraq WMD, wouldn't that make him LESS likely to be convinced? Besides, I've heard not a shred of evidence that there was some sort of key bits of evidence withheld from the Senate Arms services committee. And if there was, they they should be contacting the attorney general.

Plus you have Australia, South Korea (also richer than Canada)

Canada is the 12th richest by GDP per capita, 9th if you don't include tiny tax havens like Bermuda, Cayman Islands,and San Marino as countries. We are a G8 country. We are the second largest population of the top 17 countries by GDP per capita. Japan, UK, Gemany, and France are 18th-21st on the list, and all 4 countries have quantifiably lower standards of living than Canada. While they have somewhat larger populations which account for large overall GDPs, they are clearly poorer, a couple thousand dollars a year per person poorer, so don't try to tell me these are 'richer' countries because any economist would disagree with you. India has a higher GDP than Australia but if you try to convince me India is richer than Australia then this whole argument will be exposed for the semantic, intellectually dishonest circlejerk that it is. Even by total GDP Canada is 9th out of 192 countries, so by any measure it is wealthy.

Australia is ranked 14th in GDP per capita, South Korea is ranked 49th and is nowhere near as wealthy as Canada. Our total GDP is about 22-30% bigger than theirs, depending on whether you factor in purchasing parity; this despite the fact they have roughly 65% more people than we do. So your claim that South Korea is "also" richer than Canada is false by any measure.

Only USA, Denmark and Norway (and their whopping 600 man combined contribution between them) among the coalition are richer by conventional measure than Canada.

Link - World Bank
Link- CIA


""

It's always fun to watch someone selectively use PER capita GDP and total GDP.

Well heck, by your reasoning, Luxemberg's opinions matter on everything because they have a HUGE per capita GDP.

Reality check: Canada has a population of around 30 million. Less than the state of California.  BTW, is also has a per capita GDP that's smaller than California.  So why shoudl I care what Canada thinks any more than a few US states?  As a practical matter, Canada just doesn't matter. It can't really do anything to help or harm. It has no military. It has no leverage at all.

In response to Madine. The claim was that weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. A quote repeated dozens of times in the build-up to war. Even if that claim was never made the case was made that they already had stockpiles they could deliver to terrorists at any time. Iraq may have been a "great and gathering threat" now but when making the case for war the word used was "immenent".

I don't try hard to defend Clinton. He was a Republican-Lite, like most other Democrats. Some of the airstikes he made were totally pointless, others were a legitimate enforcement of the no-fly zone. An arguement could be made that by using airstrikes to weaken the Iraqi military you could empower Iraqi's to have thier own regime change. Though that is doubtful because of how badly we had burned them before.

Regarding what Bush knew that Kerry didn't. There were two versions of the CIA report to the Senate presented only days before the Authorization of Force vote. One contained the full spectrum of intelligence that the CIA had access to which included many doubts of thier sources and the quality of the intelligence. The other contained far fewer of these misgivings. I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that the Armed Services Comittee didn't request more information because either the Republicans controlling it had made up thier mind already, the Democrats were trying to appear tough before an election in voting for Force or more likely a combination of many factors. I don't see it merely as an intelligence failure but as a leadership failure spread throughout the government. I also don't buy the line that Bush only reacted on the information given him by the CIA. There was dissent in several of the other intelligence agencies. Why was it surpressed until after the war?

why shoudl I care what Canada thinks any more than a few US states

You don't. You've made it clear time and time again that you don't care what non Us citizens think. Hell, you don't even care what US citizens with different opinions to you think. Any points you disagree with quickly get flipped into a

Anti-Bush quote #2921

statement.


Madine,
I'm afraid I can't enlighten you here as I supported the war, but did argue against the whole WMD debate from before the war. WMD had nothing to do with my support of the war, it purely affected my respect for the US and UK administrations. Sadly even if WMD stockpiles were found, it would not increase my respect for the governemnts, as in my opinion they were only pushing this reason for war as it was a good excuse that if true would have been legally watertight.

Paul