By Samuel L. Skogstad
February 28, 2015
I recently heard an excellent presentation by a retired army
officer who had been close to the top decision making bodies of both the
Defense and State Departments in multiple presidential administrations. Although his general subject matter was the
state of the world today and the puzzles and uncertainties it presents for U.S.
policy, he stated in passing that the United States had made a mistake in
deciding to invade Iraq, because “Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction”
(WMD).
That remark kindled my own recollection of that time and
that issue, and for two reasons the speaker’s simplistic explanation of that
complex decision seemed surprising in the extreme. First, there is ample evidence that the
decision was not made on the basis of the single question of whether the WMD
were or were not in the Iraqui arsenal.
At least equally important were the widespread reports that the Hussein
regime had committed some of the gravest acts of savagery against humanity
since the Hitler regime. Rape, slaughter
and degradation, were reportedly centerpieces of their entertainments. Their inhumanity lacked any other parallel
(since ISIS had not yet been spawned) since
Hitler’s regime. Moreover, Hussein’s
expansionist aspirations—with or without WMD--- gave no evidence of having waned
following his army’s the expulsion from Kuwait . He treated United Nations Resolutions disdainfully,
and apparently did not regard them, or the U.N. itself, as restraints that
needed to be taken seriously.
The second thing that prompts surprise at the proffered explanation
for considering the invasion a mistake is that is that WMD include numerous
weapons that are not nuclear arms. Thus
it is very reasonable to argue that Iraq did indeed have WMD “or the
means to produce them” (also prohibited in UN Resolution 687 as noted
below). Yet many members of the mass
media, many disingenuous politicians, and too many uninformed, misinformed or careless thinking citizens use the expression
as if it did refer onlyto “nukes.”
Anthrax, Ricin, and poisons, represent just a small sampling of the
ample menu of potentially devastating, non-nuclear, WMD. And they are examples of the weapons that had
in fact been used by Saddam Hussein, against his own people if not others.
As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates notes in his
2014 memoir: “By 2003, most governments
and intelligence services had concluded that Saddam had been successful in
resuming his weapons programs (note this is in the plural). That view was reinforced by his boasting and
his behavior, intended to persuade his own people-and his neighbors-of that
success. The result was unanimous
adoption in the fall of 2002 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which
demanded a full accounting of progress in Iraq ’s weapons and a rigorous
international inspection effort. Serious
consequences were threatened for noncompliance. (My underlining.) The threats were scoffed at.
Also worth noting is President George W. Bush’s recollection
in his 2010 book, Decision Points, (p.236)
the following historical fact:
“As a condition for ending hostilities in the Gulf War,”
(Operation Desert Storm, 1991), “UN Resolution 687 required Saddam to destroy
his weapons of mass destruction and missiles with a range of more than ninety
miles. The resolution banned Iraq from
possessing biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, or the means to produce
them.” (My underlining.)
And further on, Bush continues: “Over time UN inspectors
discovered a vast, haunting arsenal.
Saddam had filled thousands of bombs, shells, and warheads with chemical
agents. He had a nuclear weapons program
that was about two years from yielding a bomb, much closer than the CIA’s
prewar estimate of eight to ten years.
When his son-in-law defected in 1995, Saddam acknowledged that the
regime had been hiding a biological weapons program that included anthrax and
botulinum toxin.”
Finally, it may be recalled that, considerably after the
invasion, American forces found tons of “yellow
cake,” an important ingredient in nuclear bombs, stashed away in secret Iraqui facilities. That news received barely a whisper in the
print and electronic media. (However, a plausible
explanation has been offered, namely that the U.S. Government wanted it kept
secret lest it fall into the hands of other terrorists before arriving in Canada . It had been sold, if I remember correctly,
to Canadian interests.) So the glib (if
popular) assertion that Iraq
“had no WMD” is a seriously flawed conclusion.
And as the sole justification for the claim that the invasion was wrong
it is a little like claiming that one should not shoot at pack of charging, foaming-at-the-mouth
pit bulls, before proving to a PETA committee that its members have rabies.
The foregoing is not to imply that this observer would
definitely have made the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. In fact, he had grave misgivings about the
decision. Moreover, many honorable men
and women fiercely opposed it for reasons grounded solidly in all the information
available to them. All honor to
them. In my own judgment, President
Bush’s decision too was made for reasons rooted in facts, logic, seriously
drawn inferences, compassion and his sense of duty and responsibility. Right or
wrong in the end, this is the way decisions should be made, and after-the-fact
over-simplifications such as, “it was a mistake because they had no WMD” does
not educate, illuminate the path to understanding, and does not merit much
consideration.
Still, it seems to be the assertion of choice for
journalists, politicians and religiously partisan citizens who wish to
denigrate President Bush. Such is the
way, sadly, of politics. None of what is
written here is new information. But
with presidential campaigns on the threshold, the writer hopes it will remind
people of good will to keep their “horse feathers” detectors on high alert. (Dr.
Skogstad is a retired professor of economics, a blog reader and contributor and
a brother Marine. ~Bob)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment