You're Not Being the Ball, Danny
The dossier released by Tony Blair on Iraq's WMD's is interesting reading especially when asking the question, "Is there evidence for the US to invade Iraq?" My answer remains no. The dossier does provide some interesting points about Saddam that (in their obviousness) did not occur to me before.

Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities

While it is difficult to discern Saddam's position as he sees it (something a little HUMINT might change), it seems clear that he is extremely wary of both Iran and Saudi Arabia and seeks deterrents to their acting against him as he is sure they would given the chance. He therefore seeks to develop weapons that can act as deterrents to these forces. Were he to gain a surplus of these weapons, it is not clear that he would once again attack a neighbor given what happened last time he invaded. These deterrents also give him a chip at the poker table of middle eastern politics. Iran has a clear nuclear program that Saddam undoubtedly sees as directed at him. Being able to stand eyeball to eyeball with Iran is paramount to his survival. What he have here is an incomplete outline of a regional conflict that was in full scale war 15 years ago and has been festering ever since. The question, then, is how does this conflict effect the US's interests? The administration has released its strategy (.pdf format) for its term in office in which it gives itself carte blanche to inject the US into any country in the world it sees fit. (p. 15)

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction � and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy�s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

What reason do we see for dealing with Iraq? One, Saddam threatens our oil interests. It is doubtful he would attack those again. Such a venture would need a massive and blatant arms buildup that could not be concealed or ignored. Second, he threatens us directly. Unlikely as the British dossier notes that he may retain 20 al-Hussein missles that at best could reach Turkey. Third, he threatens us indirectly. This may be true. He could threaten us indirectly if he has WMD's that he could sell to a terrorist who could then smuggle them out of Iraq and into the US and detonate them. This brings Iraq into our war on terror which is the most immediate threat to the US. According the British dossier, Saddam's potential to act with terrorists is either a non-issue or non-existent. I draw this conclusion from the fact that the dossier does not mention "al-Qaeda," "terror," "terrorist" or "terrorism" once. Nothing in the whole document. This being an assesment on Iraq's WMD's, how it has used them, and their potential for future use, one would think any propensity to use these weapons with terrorists would be addressed.

We have not captured and have no evidence that we have killed the leader's of the largest global terrorist network in the world. Accomplishing this task is both time & resource consuming and extremely difficult. The group remains the greatest threat to the US. I fail to see how diverting our military to invade Iraq will accomplish anything positive in the war on terror. The administration had objected to an independent investigation of intelligence failures prior to 9/11 on the grounds that it would distract from the war on terror. Another war seems to me to be a lot more distracting. It is true (as the administration keeps crowing) that in 1998 Clinton identified Saddam as the greatest threat to the rest of the world. Of course, Saddam didn't destroy the WTC and part of the Pentagon. He also didn't do it 12 months ago. A final thought, Iran has biological and chemical weapons. It is working closely with Russia to build a nuclear bomb. It is an oppressive regime and an unstable force in the region. It also has one of the most psychotic terrorists on the planet (a man who tortured and killed a CIA station chief with his own hands) on its government payroll.
- posted by levinson @ 9/25/2002 10:41:00 AM