|
So far in Iraq, there are few signs of Saddam Hussein and there
are few signs of his weapons of mass destruction, the so called
WMDs. Since President Bush cited, as his rationale for the invasion
of Iraq, Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,
the failure of the Americans to find such weapons has become a political
problem.
Leading Democrats like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Senator
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia have called Senate hearings to
investigate why no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons facilities
have turned up in Iraq. Senator Levin has said that “the credibility
of the nation, and of the Bush administration, is on the line.”
Senior Bush administration officials seem determined to find the
weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell has expressed confidence
that “more evidence and more proof will come forward”
as the search continues, a claim echoed by the president. Asked
if the failure to find WMDs proves that no such weapons existed
in Iraq, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfield wryly observed that “we
haven’t found Saddam Hussein, and as far as I know there is
no one who claims that he didn’t exist.”
 Certainly Hussein and
his men, knowing that an American attack was coming, can be expected
to have carefully concealed their WMDs. Perhaps they will turn up,
as the Bush team expects and hopes. But perhaps they won’t.
What then?
If there are no WMDs, clearly there was a failure of intelligence,
or of information processing, in the CIA and the White House. After
all, the Bush administration seemed completely assured that such
weapons did exist. This internal breakdown will have to be corrected.
But the strange thing is that throughout the period leading up to
the war, the Hussein regime acted like it did have facilities for
WMDs. If not, Hussein could easily have said to the U.S. and the
United Nations, ‘Send all the inspectors you want. I don’t
have the weapons, and you aren’t going to find anything.”
In other words, if Hussein had nothing to hide, he could have remained
in power.
Hussein’s behavior suggests a more common-sense interpretation:
Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMDs, whether or not he had actually
developed them. Both Iraqi scientists and United Nations inspectors
have amply testified to Hussein’s goals and efforts. Moreover,
allied forces did find two truck trailers which were probably part
of a mobile biological weapons facility. Hussein’s possession
of nerve gas and other biological agents is not in doubt: he has
used such weapons against the Kurds.
Another point to remember is that Hussein’s possession of
WMDs was never the sole rationale for the war. Rather, there were
from the outset three reasons for the coalition action that deposed
the regime: its links with al Qaeda and with terrorism, its brutality
against its own people, and its aspiration to develop WMDs.
Even if Iraq wasn’t directly behind the 9-11 attacks, the
ties between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda cannot be doubted—Colin
Powell spelled them out in his testimony before the United Nations.
Moreover, is there any remaining uncertainty about how viciously
the Hussein regime tyrannized over the people of Iraq? The mass
graves, the heart-rending testimony of Iraqis, the joyous welcome
given to coalition troops, all testify to how badly Iraqis suffered
under Hussein, and how much better their prospects are now.
Throughout the Iraq campaign, critics of the Bush administration
have insisted that the U.S. invasion was all about oil and self-interest,
and had nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqis. Ironically
if the Bush administration doesn’t find those WMDs, the main
result of this expensive war may turn out to be less important from
the point of view of America’s self-interest, and more important
from the point of view of giving the Iraqi people a better life.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version |
