A rchive Date
[ 23-11-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Britain ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/goldstein_nov23.html
Failure to find WMD hurts war on terror
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun
November 23, 2003
Britain's Daily Mirror has a clever feature that floats around the newspaper depending on where the latest news about Iraq is placed.
It's a simple graphic that many of us who supported the war against Iraq would like to forget.
Today, it will read "205 DAYS ... AND STILL NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ."
It serves as a constant reminder that no justification has yet been found for the main reason U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave for launching the war in the first place.
That is, that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons of mass destruction that he might hand over to terrorists, creating a horror that would make 9/11 pale by comparison.
It now seems obvious Bush and Blair and their respective administrations either lied about the real threat posed by Iraq, or, the more likely scenario, cherry-picked intelligence that reinforced their own view that Iraq was an imminent threat.
And that those of us, present company included, who supported the war on that basis, were wrong.
Even if weapons are now found in Iraq, it's clear Saddam did not have operational WMD at the time of the U.S.-led invasion last March, which is not to say he didn't have WMD in the past or that he ever abandoned his pursuit of them.
But what it is no longer possible to argue credibly is that Saddam posed an imminent threat at the time of the invasion, in the sense he had operational WMD ready to hand over to terrorists, or launch against his enemies.
And that was the major reason, all attempts at revisionist history aside, Bush and Blair gave for going to war.
Arguing, as some now are, that it doesn't matter whether Saddam had WMD because he had a history of acquiring, manufacturing and using such weapons, and would have revived his WMD program the moment the world's back was turned, misses the point. That is, this might have been a valid argument for war, but it wasn't the one that was made.
It was the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMD and the idea they could be deployed virtually within minutes that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell argued before the Security Council and that Blair's administration reinforced.
Secondary reason
By contrast, liberating Iraqis from the brutal grip of Saddam was offered only as a secondary reason for war, although it has now been pushed to the forefront in the absence of any WMD finds. To be sure, liberating Iraqis was a valid reason for the war according to most Iraqis in Baghdad - almost two-thirds of whom, according to polling, say the fall of Saddam was worth it, despite all they have had to endure.
In that context, it's indeed hypocritical that many of the same people - and nations - that supported NATO's bombing of Kosovo to stop crimes against humanity were the same people and nations that opposed intervening in Iraq, even though we knew monstrous crimes against humanity were occurring there.
But once again, that was not the primary reason offered for the invasion of Iraq by the war's supporters. Besides, if liberating oppressed peoples is reason enough to go to war, why not launch one against North Korea right now?
The failure of coalition forces to find WMD is one reason, no doubt, that polling last summer showed seven in 10 Canadians supported Jean Chretien's decision to stay out of the war.
That said, both Bush and Blair may well survive this controversy and win their respective domestic elections.
But the failure of the coalition forces to find WMD has enormously damaged their international credibility and will make their efforts to mount any future international coalitions to prosecute "just wars" difficult, if not impossible.
Even now, it is hampering their efforts to fight the war on terror - a just war which must be fought.
None of this is to argue the U.S. or Britain should abandon Iraq. They cannot, lest it fall into chaos. With the deed now done, Iraqis deserve better - both from the coalition and from the rest of the world, including Canada.
Simply standing on the sidelines and sneering at the U.S. and Britain reeks of moral smugness. Offering genuine assistance to help rebuild Iraq - whatever one's views on the war - is the moral course of action. So is continuing the deployment of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, where our troops are a part of a legitimate war against terrorism.
Sincere desire
I've never believed the Iraq war was "all about oil" or that Bush always intended to invade Iraq in order to seek revenge for his father. True, many key members of his administration were arguing for an invasion of Iraq all the way back to the Bill Clinton era. But Bush himself remained largely an isolationist president prior to 9/11, which is when all this began, with, I'd argue, his sincere desire to ensure such a horror was never inflicted on America again.
But if the Iraq war wasn't about oil, based on what we now know, it clearly wasn't about WMD either.
It was about getting rid of a terrible dictator who posed a potential threat to regional and perhaps world peace, sold on the basis that he was an immediate threat. Problem is, he wasn't and there's a world of difference between the two.
The difference between a just and an unjust war.
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lorrie.goldstein@tor.sunpub.com. Or visit his home page Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@tor.sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA).]
|