Where Is The Common Sense In The Iraqi WMD Debate?

Here is a great post by Tom Nichols, who teaches at the Naval War College, on the WMD in Iraq question.  It's a must read: (via Austin Bay)

All this talk about "deception" regarding the question of WMD in Iraq has really turned into Monday-morning quarterbacking of the very worst kind. The issue-from the point of view of political decisionmaking and any putative "deception"-is not whether there were WMD in Iraq before the war, or whether we'll ever find any, but rather whether any reasonable person could have believed that Saddam was hiding WMD and WMD programs in Iraq as late as 2003. The answer to that should be obvious.

First, let's start with the one thing on which everyone-and this means everyone, including the UN, the French, and even the most angry critics of George Bush-can agree: the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction at some point. We know this because they used them in battle, and by their own admission, they copped to owning thousands of liters of all kinds of nasty stuff. We also know that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program, delayed but not destroyed by an Israeli strike in 1981.

Second, let's proceed to the next thing almost everyone can agree upon, at least in 2003: no one knows where all those poisonous weapons went. Critics of the war could argue at the time that they were destroyed, but they couldn't have known that with any more certainty than those arguing they might be buried in the desert somewhere. (This was a bizarre regime, let us recall, that buried MiGs in the sand, successfully rendering them hidden, but also permanently useless.) It's important to remember that by 2003, the UN inspectors were really trying to prove a negative-that is, that Saddam didn't have WMD-and Saddam was of no mind to help them get to that conclusion. Imagine trying to execute a domestic search warrant as though it were a UN inspection. "Hi, we're here to make sure you don't have any illegal drugs in the house any more. We know you claim to have thrown them away, but we'd like to come in and look around." "Well, ok, but don't look in the kitchen." "But we have to look in the kitchen." "Hmm. Ok, just don't look in the refrigerator, we promise there's nothing in there, either." And on and on. Put another way, the single most important reason in 2003 to believe that Saddam had WMD is that he acted as though he did. (If I recall, there were reports that even some Iraqi generals were surprised to hear that there weren't actually any stocks of chemical arms.) Saddam could have ruined both Bush and Blair, and made them look like fools, by cooperating fully and conspicuously at the last minute, even before Resolution 1441 (which really sealed his fate).

But there's no reason to take George Bush's or Tony Blair's word on the WMD issue. That noted warmonger Bill Clinton gave a speech at the Pentagon in 1998 that could have as easily been given by Bush in 2002, and I think it's worth reading some of that at length, especially given the sanctimoniousness of critics who claimed that 2003 was a "rush" to war:President Clinton:

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of [Saddam's] capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

Clinton then added:

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if [Saddam] fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. [emphasis added] If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

It could be argued that Clinton was acting on what was known in 1998, but that by 2003 anyone who would take the same line was either a liar or a fool. Then Clinton must be both, because in early 2003, the issue came up in a discussion with Larry King, and Clinton-actually defending Bush-held firm on the idea that it would have been dangerous to assume that there were no longer in WMD in Iraq even at the end:

(President Clinton quote from Larry King):

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for [President Bush] to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

For what it's worth, John Kerry (among others) called for Iraq to be "disarmed" right into 2003-if there were no WMD there, what exactly would we be "disarming?"-and there are plenty of statements from Democrats and others who could hardly be counted either as Bush supporters or part of some neo-con cabal that indicate a belief in active WMD programs in Iraq right through 2002.

That's because, regardless of party affiliation, there are a lot of reasonable people in politics, and a reasonable person would not assume, without hard proof, that someone acting like they had something to hide did not in fact have something to hide. Why Saddam chose a path that ensured his downfall-pride? stupidity? arrogance?-is a question for psychologists, not policy analysts.

The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent-and just plain dumb-to take on faith Saddam Hussein's assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn't allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.

(copyright Tom Nichols)

I always like to bring out the Democratic quotes at times like these, and this time is no exception:

• “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
• “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
• “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
• “Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
• “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
• “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
• “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
• “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

But alas now they feel differently.  Could it be due to the KosMindMeld applied to the Democratic party in the last few years?  Most definitely.  The kooks in the left hate all things Bush.  Hell, our troops could wheel out a nuclear warhead from the deserts of Iraq and these dummies would say its planted.  They care more that Bush is wrong then they do our nations security.  The reaction to the NSA wiretapping story, the SWIFT story, Gitmo, tells us this.  It speaks volumes about the character of the Democratic party in 2006.  

And it's a ugly sight.

The left has been arguing the "but Saddam let inspectors back in, we should have given him more time" baloney for the past year or so since most everything they have argued about in the past has been disproven by the Saddam documents.

The fact of the matter is the inspectors were allowed back in after a four year hiatus only AFTER Bush started massing troops at his border.  Blix stated the Iraqi government was being uncooperative and the supposed catalog of weapons Saddam gave to them could not be verified.  Blix wanted more time, as if 12 years wasn't enough.  It was apparent to most everyone that Blix was going to be lead around by the nose by Saddam once again as all the other inspectors were and Bush said enough is enough already….thank god.

As Blix told the UN in March of '03:

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

But of course 12 years after Saddam signed the cease fire and even though Saddam was not providing "immediate" cooperation we should have given even MORE time. 

Maybe 15 years would have been the cut-off for the liberals?  20 years?  50?  Exactly when do you think the left would have decided enough was enough in a post 9/11 world?

I think never.  They live in a fantasy world where everyone joins hands and sings kum-bah-yah. 

Other's Blogging:

• The Unalienable Right

But alas now they feel differently. Could it be due to the KosMindMeld applied to the Democratic party in the last few years? Most definitely. The kooks in the left hate all things Bush. Hell, our troops could wheel out a nuclear warhead from the deserts of Iraq and these dummies would say its planted. They care more that Bush is wrong then they do our nations security. The reaction to the NSA wiretapping story, the SWIFT story, Gitmo, tells us this. It speaks volumes about the character of the Democratic party in 2006.

Curt

See author page