"The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn't anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that."
I remember when Sullivan used to criticize those who screamed "No WMD!" He did so because, even if it turned out that those people were right, the entire world believed Saddam did have WMD before the war. To criticize the Bush administration for believing the same evidence everyone else believed is, at best, disingenuous.
He also used to admit that there's no way to comprehensively plan a war or its aftermath - there are simply too many variables to take into account. Yes, there have been, are now, and will continue to be setbacks. This is simply the way of things: we are not all-knowing.
For several weeks now, he's gone entirely around another bend - now, not only should Bush and company known, against all available evidence, that there were no WMD, they should also have foreseen every possible setback, and taken steps to counter them.
With today's Iraq Survey Group report, the conventional wisdom becomes that: sometime between 1992 (or 1998, the last time inspectors were in Iraq) and the invasion, Iraq somehow disposed of its stockpile of WMD, but also continued to defy the UN.
I will continue to look askance at any statement that Iraq had no WMD, simply because Saddam's past and other UNSCOM reports provide too much evidence to the contrary. We have not found his weapons - that much is true, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know he had them at one time.
I hope another point in the report will also remain widely known: that Saddam's regime remained committed to keeping their WMD potential alive. From GlennReynolds.com:
The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.
Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible.
Here is the link to the ISG report's key findings. Read it yourself. I see a great deal more here than today's headlines are revealing, and I see a great deal more than Sullivan is letting on.
ADDENDUM: I should mention that it's not that I disagree with Sullivan that makes it hard for me to read his blog these days - it's that I see him contradicting his past comments. He always had questions and criticisms of the war, but in the past he's also acknowledged the limits of his own understanding. That seems to have changed. If I want to read pure anti-Bush opinion, there are plenty of places to get it. I came to Sullivan because I found him more open and thoughtful.
3 comments:
I read Andrew Sullivan. I, personally, am glad to hear a voice of reason and I rejoice when someone who has been mislead comes to their senses.
The Bush administation's obsession with Iraq doesn't have anything to do with WMD and never did. It's about cleaning up Daddy Bush's old business and getting control of the oil. Nevertheless, even if someone *did* believe that there *was* a danger from WMD they no longer can. The UN inspectors said that clearly *before* Bush & Rumsfeld took this country to war. Bush's own inspection teams, after 3 years of unfettered access any site in Iraq and after a 2-3 yr. opportunity to question Iraqui scientists, have now concluded definitively that there were no WMD.
To continue to wage war after the threat and the rationale are gone is the equivalent of someone breaking into your house saying it's a crack house and then continuing to destroy your life when they've satisfied themselves that it is not. Simple as that.
If you want to eliminate the threat of WMD, it's Iran, No. Korea and Pakistan that you want to be invading. Only what troops are left to do that? Come to think of it, what troops are left to defend the US if Iran, No. Korea or Pakistan decide to launch missles with nuclear weapons at us? And what allies are left to care?
Rainy, So, you do agree with my posting of 10/6. Your suspected crack house is invaded, and only heroin, methamphetamine along with its production recipe, and countless dead bodies are found, but only a small amount of crack residue. So free Saddam, and give him his country and armaments back. Next time, we'll use the Goober Test before acting.
We now have better defense and intelligence-gathering capabilities than we had before 9/11. We still have the capability to wipe those countries off the face of the earth. We are not now, nor have we ever been, truly weak. Though some administrations have been weak-willed as far as protecting the lives of Americans is concerned.
We have tried to be kind and gentle with innocents in this war. American lives would have been saved if we hadn't. There are many who have advocated a less gentle approach.
Post a Comment