WMD use in retrospect
Juan Cole in his blog I referenced below states:
Besides, George, your whole argument was that Saddam intended to use those weapons. If he had them but refused to use them when facing a frontal military attack, when exactly would he have used them?
This was something I wrote on the day of the beginning of the bombardment:
Subject: The lie is laid bare
Date: March 20, 2003 1:33:36 PM EST
Juan Cole in his blog I referenced below states:
Besides, George, your whole argument was that Saddam intended to use those weapons. If he had them but refused to use them when facing a frontal military attack, when exactly would he have used them?
This was something I wrote on the day of the beginning of the bombardment:
Subject: The lie is laid bare
Date: March 20, 2003 1:33:36 PM EST
In this time of unbelievable sadness, I’ll try to keep my own opinions succinct, yet there is one question which will not be asked of the Bush administration by the compliant broadcast media.
The Bush administration stated it feared Iraqi weapons of mass destruction so greatly, that it rejected Hans Blix’s request to take a few more months to complete disarmament. The Bush administration clearly stated the threat of WMD use needed immediate response and that 30 days (as proposed by Chile and other U.N security council members) to assess a checklist of WMD questions was in Ari Fleischers terms “a non-starter”.
If that is the case, why attack Hussein personally with a missile attack and then wait over 12 hours? This missile attack was called “the opening stage of disarmament”. Surely they should be attacking every possible WMD site known to prevent what has been claimed to be the immanent threat? Given the risk that even if the missile attack did kill Hussein, chemical and biological weapons could still be used (and indeed missile counter attacks have been reported, with conventional warheads), surely the overwhelming force the Bush administration possesses should have enabled the overwhelming “shock and awe” attack with the specific focus to destroy WMD capability. Yet no such targeting has been reported by the Bush administration or the media allowed to accompany the military.
To not prosecute the war with the immediate goal of disarmament is either an extremely reckless endangerment of U.S troops, a complete breakdown in military command or the frightening conclusion: The Bush administration never feared chemical, nuclear or biological attack because they have always known that threat is their own bogus invention. I sincerely hope Iraq does not possess WMD, but whether such attacks subsequently appear or not, the point is moot, the real issue is that the Bush administration used the claim of immanent WMD threat to justify the incursion, yet their strategic attacks contradict such objectives; they went after the man first, not the weapons.
The lie has been exposed, there is no real WMD threat, this is a bloodbath for oil, this is a war on the minds and rights of the U.S population, this is war to stop the rise of the petro-euro replacing the petro-dollar as oil currency. There is no doubt the objective of the Bush administration is the removal of the Hussein government (that the CIA installed overthrowing the Qassam government which was nationalizing the Iraqi oil fields), but the reason to remove this regime clearly has nothing to do with the concept of removal of threat to anyone.
An argument of “liberation” of the Iraqi people from the regime needs to be compared to the U.S. condemnation of the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam to free the Cambodian people from the oppression of the Khymer Rouge. No one supports the Hussein dictatorship, but as the overthrow of the Ceaucescu government in Romania, the deposing of the Marcos regime in the Philipines, the Suharto regime in Indonesia, and the apartheid government in South Africa all demonstrate viable means of removal of dictatorships through the peaceful will of its citizens, backed by intelligent diplomacy and support of other countries. The U.S, the U.K and Australia all as some of the wealthiest and most stable democracies on the planet had the opportunity to lead by example, and yet the installed governments of those nations have betrayed all of us.
This conflict (the term war suggests equal combatants) is one in which very few will win anything, yet the loss will be felt by nearly all of us.
There is a call to meet in Times Square at 5:00pm tonight. Since there is no permit, we plan to meet on the sidewalks, bring your banners!