Sunday, September 28, 2003
Saddamistaken?
"Why, if Saddam had nothing to hide, did he endure billions of dollars in sanctions and ultimately prompt his own destruction?" This question is asked by reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware in this week's Time magazine cover story, Chasing a Mirage. Indeed, Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors was one of the most persuasive arguments that he must have had something to hide. It's what convinced Clinton in the mid-90s, and Hans Blix later on, that WMD programs were still going strong, despite public denials from Baghdad. The inspectors also had evidence of massive amounts of VX gas and anthrax that Iraq admitted it had produced, but insisted it had destroyed, though inexplicably had kept no records of the destruction. To say this seemed unlikely was an understatement -- it would be equivalent to an accused murderer insisting he had proof of an alibi, but had unwisely destroyed all records of it before being questioned by police. Combined with increasingly persuasive CIA and British intelligence, it was hard to find anyone, from any political party, who doubted the existence of illegal Iraqi weapons programs before the war began.
Now, the pieces are coming into place. In part, Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors into the nation (thereby averting sanctions and most likely the recent war) had a lot to do with hiding conventional weapons programs. He was paranoid that the U.N. visits were an excuse for the U.S. to spy on classified military intelligence and their sophisticated new radar equipment. But the more ironic and intriguing reason for Saddam's obstinacy was that his advisors and captains routinely lied to him about creating extensive illegal WMD programs. We now know that many of these programs were scams, that the money was routed to other areas in government (or simply to increase the personal wealth of the corrupt commanders), and that Saddam was given fake updates on the development of illegal weapons that were never, in fact, developed. Some of these documents were unintentionally leaked to U.S. and British intelligence sources, further convincing both governments of the existence of these programs. Since Saddam himself was fooled by these con artists, it's difficult to fault our intelligence sources for falling for the same bogus data. It's a con game plot twist worthy of Matchstick Men, and is historically reminiscent of how our government once intentionally leaked faulty intelligence to the Russians that the "Star Wars" strategic defensive system was far, far more sophisticated than it actually was. Of course, at least Reagan knew the SDI documents were exaggerated; in this case, Saddam was the one who was fooled.
Yes, we'll likely find a few banned weapons eventually, but even if we don't, does it mean, as so many have been led to believe, that the war was a "mistake"? The idea that Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction seems at the very best, a stretch, and at the worst, an irresponsible misrepresentation. His evidence was the same as Clinton's and Blair's and Blix's. Democrats and Republicans alike who saw the data agreed that it was a near certainty that these illegal weapons existed (as well as, ironically, Saddam himself.) The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed. Resolutions were passed requiring certain things of Iraq, Iraq refused to comply, and the actions for non-compliance were carried out on schedule. It was exactly what should have happened.
Imagine if police pull over a man suspected of having drugs in his car. The police ask the gentleman to step out of the vehicle so the car can be searched. The man, believing he does have drugs in his car, freaks out and speeds away. The police now have every reason to be convinced that their suspicions are correct, and chase him down. When they eventually catch him, arrest him, and search the car, they find some drug paraphernalia (an empty pipe, etc.) but no actual narcotics. Does this mean they were wrong to give chase? They asked to inspect for illegal drugs, the man refused to comply, presumably because he thought he did have them, and the police carried out the procedure required of them under such circumstances. It's a pretty big stretch in this case to accuse the police of acting inappropriately, just because it turned out that there weren't any drugs after all.
Ah, but the idea that Bush "lied" is such a great rallying point for the president's opponents, particularly the Democratic presidential contenders. Sure, it defies all logic and reason, since no one has offered any plausible theory as to why on earth Bush would "lie" to have an expensive war which would prove him wrong and get him removed from office, but it just sounds so good in a sound bite, doesn't it? What's worse is that most of the Democratic presidential contenders were strong supporters of the war in Iraq, for the same reason Bush was, until the wind changed and they realized that could get higher polling results if they switched sides. Not exactly a quality that screams "leadership," is it? (Yes, Dean and Braun are exceptions, but they've flip flopped on so many other issues I'll have to tackle them in a different post.)
What no one seems to be paying attention to, especially with the relentlessly negative coverage of Ba'athist remnant resistance groups occasionally picking off a couple of U.S. soldiers, is that Iraq is overwhelmingly better off now than it was under Saddam. Even in Baghdad, the most war-torn and damaged city in the nation, Iraqi citizens say removing Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured by an eight to one margin (67% to 8%). This was the most extensive Gallup polling ever done in the nation and is a fascinating underscore to what recent visitors have said upon visiting the city, that the only people claiming the war wasn't "worth it" are opponents of Bush in this county, not Iraqi citizens most affected by the outcome. (An editorial in the New York Post correctly opines that if the survey had shown Iraqi citizens believing the war wasn't worth it, it would have been on the front page for weeks; since the survey results overwhelmingly supported the U.S. action, however, it naturally got "in other news" status.) The fact that the general sentiment in Iraq is one of gratitude, not hostility, is a big deal. Yes, they're still skeptical that we have their best interests at heart, especially after breaking our promises to those who opposed Saddam after the first Gulf War, abandoning them to torture and death for their disobedience which we encouraged. It's difficult to blame them for being distrustful -- we just need to do a better job convincing the people that our best wishes for them to be able to self-govern is precisely why we haven't left yet, when the situation is still unstable. We made mistakes in 1991 that we can't afford to repeat, and in the long run I believe Iraq will understand the benefits, in hindsight, of our extended stay. The Iraqi citizens are overwhelmingly optimistic about their new Democracy, and once the training wheels are off, they have the ability of becoming the best example of self-government in the region. There is a real chance for Iraq's liberation to be a turning point for that part of the world. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this.
Therefore, the President's opponents, through their sound bites and criticisms, have a very good chance of ending up on the wrong side of history. In ten years, if the democracy in Iraq remains intact and the nation is strong, no one is going to care that we only found a handful of banned weapons instead of the hundreds we were anticipating. No one is going to care about yellowcake uranium or a cowboyish "bring it on" comment or a couple of moderate-sized war protests which got out of hand. This is an historic opportunity for the world to come together and recognize a significant change in an enormous region, and although Bush deserves some of the blame for not convincing the world that he was right, history's judgment will likely be a lot kinder than, say, France's. It is by no means a small deal that the best intelligence in the world was duped by Saddam's sketchy henchmen, and there were some real failures on our end that need to be investigated. But even if one of our main reasons for going to war turned out to be in error, the United Nations would have been negligent in not acting as they did, with the information they had before them. More importantly, if the people most affected by the engagement so overwhelmingly believe the outcome was worth the costs, who are we to deny them their future by lambasting their liberation? Indeed, it's tellingly significant that no one, not even the President's staunchest opponents who want nothing more than to remove Bush from office, have suggested that the world would be better off had we not removed Saddam from his.
"Why, if Saddam had nothing to hide, did he endure billions of dollars in sanctions and ultimately prompt his own destruction?" This question is asked by reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware in this week's Time magazine cover story, Chasing a Mirage. Indeed, Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors was one of the most persuasive arguments that he must have had something to hide. It's what convinced Clinton in the mid-90s, and Hans Blix later on, that WMD programs were still going strong, despite public denials from Baghdad. The inspectors also had evidence of massive amounts of VX gas and anthrax that Iraq admitted it had produced, but insisted it had destroyed, though inexplicably had kept no records of the destruction. To say this seemed unlikely was an understatement -- it would be equivalent to an accused murderer insisting he had proof of an alibi, but had unwisely destroyed all records of it before being questioned by police. Combined with increasingly persuasive CIA and British intelligence, it was hard to find anyone, from any political party, who doubted the existence of illegal Iraqi weapons programs before the war began.
Now, the pieces are coming into place. In part, Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors into the nation (thereby averting sanctions and most likely the recent war) had a lot to do with hiding conventional weapons programs. He was paranoid that the U.N. visits were an excuse for the U.S. to spy on classified military intelligence and their sophisticated new radar equipment. But the more ironic and intriguing reason for Saddam's obstinacy was that his advisors and captains routinely lied to him about creating extensive illegal WMD programs. We now know that many of these programs were scams, that the money was routed to other areas in government (or simply to increase the personal wealth of the corrupt commanders), and that Saddam was given fake updates on the development of illegal weapons that were never, in fact, developed. Some of these documents were unintentionally leaked to U.S. and British intelligence sources, further convincing both governments of the existence of these programs. Since Saddam himself was fooled by these con artists, it's difficult to fault our intelligence sources for falling for the same bogus data. It's a con game plot twist worthy of Matchstick Men, and is historically reminiscent of how our government once intentionally leaked faulty intelligence to the Russians that the "Star Wars" strategic defensive system was far, far more sophisticated than it actually was. Of course, at least Reagan knew the SDI documents were exaggerated; in this case, Saddam was the one who was fooled.
Yes, we'll likely find a few banned weapons eventually, but even if we don't, does it mean, as so many have been led to believe, that the war was a "mistake"? The idea that Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction seems at the very best, a stretch, and at the worst, an irresponsible misrepresentation. His evidence was the same as Clinton's and Blair's and Blix's. Democrats and Republicans alike who saw the data agreed that it was a near certainty that these illegal weapons existed (as well as, ironically, Saddam himself.) The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed. Resolutions were passed requiring certain things of Iraq, Iraq refused to comply, and the actions for non-compliance were carried out on schedule. It was exactly what should have happened.
Imagine if police pull over a man suspected of having drugs in his car. The police ask the gentleman to step out of the vehicle so the car can be searched. The man, believing he does have drugs in his car, freaks out and speeds away. The police now have every reason to be convinced that their suspicions are correct, and chase him down. When they eventually catch him, arrest him, and search the car, they find some drug paraphernalia (an empty pipe, etc.) but no actual narcotics. Does this mean they were wrong to give chase? They asked to inspect for illegal drugs, the man refused to comply, presumably because he thought he did have them, and the police carried out the procedure required of them under such circumstances. It's a pretty big stretch in this case to accuse the police of acting inappropriately, just because it turned out that there weren't any drugs after all.
Ah, but the idea that Bush "lied" is such a great rallying point for the president's opponents, particularly the Democratic presidential contenders. Sure, it defies all logic and reason, since no one has offered any plausible theory as to why on earth Bush would "lie" to have an expensive war which would prove him wrong and get him removed from office, but it just sounds so good in a sound bite, doesn't it? What's worse is that most of the Democratic presidential contenders were strong supporters of the war in Iraq, for the same reason Bush was, until the wind changed and they realized that could get higher polling results if they switched sides. Not exactly a quality that screams "leadership," is it? (Yes, Dean and Braun are exceptions, but they've flip flopped on so many other issues I'll have to tackle them in a different post.)
What no one seems to be paying attention to, especially with the relentlessly negative coverage of Ba'athist remnant resistance groups occasionally picking off a couple of U.S. soldiers, is that Iraq is overwhelmingly better off now than it was under Saddam. Even in Baghdad, the most war-torn and damaged city in the nation, Iraqi citizens say removing Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured by an eight to one margin (67% to 8%). This was the most extensive Gallup polling ever done in the nation and is a fascinating underscore to what recent visitors have said upon visiting the city, that the only people claiming the war wasn't "worth it" are opponents of Bush in this county, not Iraqi citizens most affected by the outcome. (An editorial in the New York Post correctly opines that if the survey had shown Iraqi citizens believing the war wasn't worth it, it would have been on the front page for weeks; since the survey results overwhelmingly supported the U.S. action, however, it naturally got "in other news" status.) The fact that the general sentiment in Iraq is one of gratitude, not hostility, is a big deal. Yes, they're still skeptical that we have their best interests at heart, especially after breaking our promises to those who opposed Saddam after the first Gulf War, abandoning them to torture and death for their disobedience which we encouraged. It's difficult to blame them for being distrustful -- we just need to do a better job convincing the people that our best wishes for them to be able to self-govern is precisely why we haven't left yet, when the situation is still unstable. We made mistakes in 1991 that we can't afford to repeat, and in the long run I believe Iraq will understand the benefits, in hindsight, of our extended stay. The Iraqi citizens are overwhelmingly optimistic about their new Democracy, and once the training wheels are off, they have the ability of becoming the best example of self-government in the region. There is a real chance for Iraq's liberation to be a turning point for that part of the world. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this.
Therefore, the President's opponents, through their sound bites and criticisms, have a very good chance of ending up on the wrong side of history. In ten years, if the democracy in Iraq remains intact and the nation is strong, no one is going to care that we only found a handful of banned weapons instead of the hundreds we were anticipating. No one is going to care about yellowcake uranium or a cowboyish "bring it on" comment or a couple of moderate-sized war protests which got out of hand. This is an historic opportunity for the world to come together and recognize a significant change in an enormous region, and although Bush deserves some of the blame for not convincing the world that he was right, history's judgment will likely be a lot kinder than, say, France's. It is by no means a small deal that the best intelligence in the world was duped by Saddam's sketchy henchmen, and there were some real failures on our end that need to be investigated. But even if one of our main reasons for going to war turned out to be in error, the United Nations would have been negligent in not acting as they did, with the information they had before them. More importantly, if the people most affected by the engagement so overwhelmingly believe the outcome was worth the costs, who are we to deny them their future by lambasting their liberation? Indeed, it's tellingly significant that no one, not even the President's staunchest opponents who want nothing more than to remove Bush from office, have suggested that the world would be better off had we not removed Saddam from his.
