This Associated Press report confirms my own hunch about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
A close aide to Saddam Hussein says the Iraqi dictator did in fact get rid of his weapons of mass destruction but deliberately kept the world guessing about it an effort to divide the international community and stave off a U.S. invasion.The article goes on to misrepresent the administration
The strategy, which turned out to be a serious miscalculation, was designed to make the Iraqi dictator look strong in the eyes of the Arab world, while countries such as France and Russia were wary of joining an American-led attack. At the same time, the aide said, Saddam retained the technical know-how and brain power to restart the programs at any time.
If true, it would indicate there was no imminent unconventional weapons threat from Iraq, an argument President Bush used to go to war. Although the search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons continues, none have been found.[Bush never called Iraq an "imminent threat", as I discussed here] The "bluff" explanation, in my mind anyway, passes Occam's Razor as the plainest answer to the question: "Where are the WMD?". It also more than justifies both US intelligence's apparent misassessment of the existence of weapons and the removal of Saddam from power.
Let's imagine how events would have played out had Saddam succeeded with his bluff: No weapons would have been found, and the inspections would have ended, with the White House having been discredited. There would no longer be any justification for US military pressure on Iraq and the UN sanctions would also have to end. With the inspectors gone and Saddam's freedom of operation restored with the technical capability and know-how still in place, Iraq would be able to reconstitute its weapons. And who would listen to American concerns about Iraqi weapons at that point? Fast forward to the time when Iraq has fully operational weapons and really does pose an imminent threat to the US and/or our allies. Naturally, it would be all that much harder for us to defeat Saddam than it was this year.
Congressional Democrats and those who squawk "Bush lied" (but never squawk "Saddam lied") might be satisfied with the above scenario, but I'm glad we dismantled Saddam's regime when we had the chance.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 02, 2003 12:44 PMExcellent reasoning, Shark. Superb! Bush may have used similar reasoning for his decision. But, clearly, the reasoning is too complex and the threat to remote for most everyone except those with all the secret intelligence. Bush was put in a very difficult position politically because of it and he showed great leadership.
Simply put: "Don't mess with Texas."
Posted by: ipsofacto on August 2, 2003 07:22 PMGood article. Of course, if Saddam was threatening the possession/use of WMD as a bluff, it surely wasn't wrong on our part to conclude that he still had them and would use them given the opportunity. I'm sure our intel guys could be forgiven if they shrugged their shoulders and said, "my bad." Saddam's bluff could only have worked with a weak president (e.g., Carter, Clinton). It was a fatal miscalculation with a strong president.
Posted by: Steve White on August 2, 2003 09:14 PM3 words: suicide by cop
Posted by: Zev Sero on August 3, 2003 09:50 PM