Wondering Where the Weapons Are

I've been listening to some 80's music this evening, thanks, or perhaps no thanks, to James Lileks and Glenn Reynolds. ;-)

The music was bringing back some old memories, mostly of other old songs - stuff I used to enjoy. One of the songs that came to mind actually came out in 1979, but that's close enough to the 80's that I think it counts as an 80's song. That was Wondering Where the Lions Are (click here to listen to it) by Bruce Cockburn, a Canadian folk rock artist. I liked that song a lot back in my college days, especially since Bruce Cockburn is a Christian (at least according to his biography). I doubt he'd consider himself an evangelical Christian, but still, many of his song lyrics contain Christian themes and images that I related to as a college student, and I like even now.

I haven't followed what Cockburn has been doing for many years. Apparently, he's been socially and politically active, and has just returned from a trip to Iraq. Cockburn, even back when I listened to his music, was always socially conscious and has used his music to make social and political statements. I'd forgotten this, but his song If I Had a Rocket Launcher was written to protest the violence that was occurring in Central America in the 80's and 90's. As near as I can tell, Cockburn is very much against war of any kind and maybe for any reason. Here's a list of organizations that Mr. Cockburn has supported (from The Cockburn Project web site): Amnesty Int'l, Campaign for a Landmine Free World, Corporate Watch, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam, School of the Americas Watch, The Suzuki Foundation, Unitarian Service Committee, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Mine Action Service, and War Child.

It's clear that Cockburn's political ideology is quite far to the left, so I was dismayed, but I suppose not surprised, to read these kinds of statements from him:

These people (Bush administration) don't care who they kill, whether it's Iraqis or American soldiers.

And:

...there's a lot going on here [ed. Iraq] to be outraged about, certainly, among them the hypocrisy of the American administration who claim to be Christians and operating from a basis of faith, and who are conspicuously not loving their neighbor in this country. It's hard to get words around the enormity of what's going on here, and I'm not sure if I have much perspective on it yet, but clearly the war in Iraq was not about freeing the people of Iraq from an onerous dictatorship. It was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was not about a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. That's obvious without coming to Iraq, but it's doubly obvious when you come here and you see who's paying the price for this war. Aside from the American taxpayers, who I don't think fully realize the price they are paying, it's the people of Iraq that are paying--the increasing numbers of homeless people living in bombed- out buildings, whole families strugling as best they can with 60% of the population out of work, the economy just absolutely shattered and nothing being done to rehabilitate it...who knows what the future holds, but from the point of view of the aveage Iraqi it's clear that everything being done is about Bush's potential in the next election. Every Iraqi I talk to says that. It's very clear to them that it's all about electioneering.

Cockburn's statements are such pathetic, leftist nonsense that it's hard to know where to begin. He went to Iraq with a particular ideology, found people (apparently) that told him what he wanted to hear, and came back with exactly the same views as he had before he left. Why did he bother going at all? He apparently thinks the whole war was engineered to further George Bush's re-election. He surely can't really believe that, can he? I suppose it's promising that he doesn't say it was all for oil.

Cockburn says, "...conspicuously not loving their neighbor." Does he think that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein?

Perhaps he ought to take a look at some other sources, like perhaps "The Mesopotamian." It's a web log by Alaa, an Iraqi living in Baghdad. Who do you think is better informed about the situation there? Who has better insight into how Iraqis actually feel? Read this post from January 17, 2004:

These are critical times and I think much will happen the next few weeks. But take courage brave America, the courage that comes from conviction that you are in the right; that your cause is noble and just. Despite all the fog and deliberate confusing of the issues, you must know that the Majority of the people still believe in you at heart. You have taken on formidable tasks. You must rise up to the challenge, and you can and we are with you. Never mind the noise; the barking of enraged canids deprived of their spoils; the scheming of old “Belles” of yesterday who cannot understand that their days are gone; the brutality of misled peasants who know not what they are doing; never mind all that and more, as long as you are on the right path.

Read the whole thing!

I'm glad that Alaa recognizes that the U.S. has done the Iraqi people a great service by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. It's unfortunate that people like Bruce Cockburn, a citizen of an ostensible ally (Canada), are so blinded by political ideology that they can't or won't recognize that.

Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Part of the problem is that the anti-war crowd apparently can't see the forest for the trees. What I mean is that that there were several reasons for removing Saddam Hussein and the Baathists, and the Bush administration and it's supporters made the case for war using them, but the anti-war left is focusing on a single issue: weapons of mass destruction.

The intelligence community, apparently for a long time, has misunderstood Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities. At this point, it seems likely that no large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons will be found in Iraq. But for years, long before George W. Bush even took office, intelligence had indicated that Iraq's WMD programs were advanced, and that Iraq's military had amassed huge stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. We know that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and against the Iranians. His regime was never willing or able to produce documentation showing that all of the weapons had been accounted for or destroyed.

Here's what the UN report of February 28, 2003 [PDF file] had to say about "cooperation on substance:"

The declaration of 7 December, despite the hopes attached to it and despite its large volume, has not been found to provide new evidence or data that may help to resolve outstanding disarmament issues...

During the period of time covered by the present report, Iraq could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items. The results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far. The destruction of missiles, which is an important operation, has not yet begun. Iraq could have made full use of the declaration, which was submitted on 7 December. It is hard to understand why a number of the measures, which are now being taken, could not have been initiated earlier. If they had been taken earlier, they might have borne fruit by now. It is only by the middle of January and thereafter that Iraq has taken a number of steps, which have the potential of resulting either in the presentation for destruction of stocks or items that are proscribed or the presentation of relevant evidence solving long-standing unresolved disarmament issues.

In other words, Iraq didn't cooperate fully, as required, and the UN inspectors couldn't reliably determine whether or not Iraq had disarmed itself of chemical or biological weapons or had stopped work on nuclear weapons.

Only after the war, with U.S. (not U.N.) inspectors given complete, unopposed access to the whole country for several months, could it be determined with any certainty that no large stockpiles of WMDs currently exist in Iraq.

To be fair, those opposing the war have a point. No significant weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Before the war, the administration primarily used the threat of Iraq's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists as the basis for removing Saddam Hussein from power - at least in official statements by the President. Only after major combat had ended were other reasons (freedom and democracy in Iraq, the "domino" effect in the Middle East) laid out as justifications for the war. I spent several hours reviewing speeches and statements to the press by the President from September of 2000 until March of 2003 (see www.whitehouse.gov). I may have overlooked something, but nowhere did I find clear statements by the President that the basis for removing Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq was based on anything significant other than Iraq's possession of WMD's. To be straightforward, the case for war in Iraq was based, prior to the war, almost solely on intelligence that Iraq possessed significant numbers of ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons and had advanced programs to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

As it turns out, we now know that intelligence was wrong; therefore, the WMD justification for the war turned out, post bellum, to be false.

So, because the intelligence was wrong, was the case for the war invalid? Or, to consider the question a little differently, looking a little more at the forest and a little less at a single tree, does the bad intelligence invalidate what was accomplished by removing Saddam Hussein?

In a word: No.

Though they may have been post-hoc reasons for the war, it is still true that:

1. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant of the worst kind, and his regime was ruled by fear and torture. He brutally tortured and killed thousands, maybe even millions, of his own citizens. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient for getting rid of him. One less violent, maniacal dictator is one more country with people given opportunities to live fulfilling, decent lives.
2. Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace in the Middle East. His aggression was only held in check by constant monitoring and economic sanctions that he then used as an excuse to starve and brutalize the people of his own country - all the while, building himself more and more elaborate and gaudy palaces. Did he deserve to be removed from power? Ask the Kurds, the Shiites, the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Iranians, and the marsh Arabs. I think they'd all say yes.
3. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. It has been well-documented that Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel (Google on Saddam Hussein Palestinian suicide bomb for lots of sources). Terror groups associated with Al Qaeda were operating within Iraq before the war and may have been funded, at least in part, by the Iraqi government. There is no direct link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001, but there is no doubt that Saddam was part of the larger problem of terrorism.
4. Saddam Hussein disregarded numerous United Nations resolutions dealing with disarmament and inspections. His military fired anti-aircraft weapons at U.S. and U.K. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones, so he never lived up even to the initial cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities at the end of the first Gulf War, let alone any of other numerous resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. Any one of those violations would seem to provide legal justification for the war.
5. The "domino effect" theory for moving the Middle East towards democracy and away from terrorism seems to be working. Witness Libya's recent renouncement of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Iraq itself is moving inexorably toward democratic self-rule, despite the efforts of terrorists and "dead-enders" to sabotage the process. If our government stays the course, we will win in Iraq.

The Middle East, as a whole, has been a problem for decades, for a multitude of reasons. It is true that for some of the problems the United States bears some blame.

However, the events of September 11, 2001 made the people and government of United States (or at least some of us) fully aware of the magnitude of the threat posed by despotism, fundamentalist Islamism, theocracies and dictatorships giving rise to and supporting terrorism.

To counter the terrorist threats arising in the Middle East requires bold and risky steps to be taken. Our past mistakes are no excuse for shirking our moral responsibility to take whatever actions are necessary to see that people everywhere, not only within our own borders, are able to live lives free from terror, in pursuit of their own liberty and happiness. Removing Saddam Hussein, in my view, was a major part of the larger strategy for the Middle East - to move the entire region away from Islamic fundamentalism, theocracy and brutal dictatorship, which give rise to terrorism, and towards representative governments, ruled by law and respectful of individual rights, which will bring peace and stability to the whole region.

So, the war on terror, of which Iraq is just one important battle (as was Afghanistan), isn't really about weapons of mass destruction (Bruce Cockburn was right about that - but for the wrong reasons). Certainly, we can't allow enemies that cannot be deterred (as terrorists can't) to possess WMD's. The events of 9/11 showed that. We are vulnerable. But in the broad perspective, the war on terror is attempting to change the culture of oppression, fear and hatred in the Middle East. So, even if weapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq, and all of the pre-war intelligence was wrong, I still believe our actions there were justified and proper. Removing Saddam Hussein from power to face the justice he deserves was a major step forward in the reformation (I use the word advisedly) of the Middle East.

Permanent link