I Still Don't Get the WMD Thing

Everyone, right and left, is still so hopped up on the WMD thing. Today, the hawk blogosphere is creaming their pants because the NY Times points out Saddam was close to getting a nuke.

It doesn't change the fact Iraq is a mess, nor does it retroactively justify the invasion. Nor do I expect it will change anyone opposed to the invasion originally to shift their thinking. I've decided, for my own personal reasons, the possession of WMD argument was one of the least important justifications for going into Iraq. I think Bush and Blair emphasized the reason too heavily and that it was essentially a legal ruse to get the UN on board, when the real good reasons for going into Iraq were political, strategic, and moral - not legal.

And not to mention, that in hindsight the WMD argument has come back to haunt Bush and Blair, giving the war opposition ammunition to avoid the real issue of this weird symbiotic relationship autocratic middle eastern states have with international jihadist organizations. From the debate perspective, it was a weak line of reasoning.

Even if we found WMDs in the first place, that wouldn't have justified the invasion in the eyes of war opponents. Prior to the invasion war opponents were not arguing that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They were arguing that he was containable and that we should only go in with UN backing. Whether he had weapons was, as I said before, unknowable.

I supported the war - not because I knew Saddam had WMDs - but because I thought amoung other things - we would never be able to be sure he did or did not have WMDs. I also think the only long term solution to the issue of jihadism was a shaking up of the Middle East, with an alternative to autocratic governments. I also think we need to wean ourselves off Saudi oil, and a west friendly Iraq sans Saddam could be used as to balance the Saudis - who are blackmailing the world with their control of oil reserves. I also think thugs like Saddam, who thumb their noses at the world, and more importantly the United States, deserve a commupatance, that in general, we'd gotten too soft on mega-assholes and Saddam was the biggest mega-asshole of them all.

Saddam was not behind 9/11. I think the relationship between Saddam and Islamic Jihadist groups was an implicit one, where they benefitted from one another, but did not actively work with one another to a degree that justified immediate retaliation, anyway. I just think the jig was up with the guy, and it was time to deal with him the way we should have 12 years before in Gulf War 1.

I always knew there was a potential downside, that invading Iraq would inflame angry around the Muslim world and make France, Russia, and the rest of the axis of weasels squirm. But I also thought it was time to take a bold, different approach to dealing with pieces of shit.

I didn't not think about the ethnic tensions and hatred. Part of that is because it is so foreign to my own personal mindset, I don't really understand it. I didn't worry so much about the notion of Iraqi nationalism and that there would be a widespread anti-US insurgency like the Viet Cong. And it turns out I was right. There isn't a widespread nationalist impulse in Iraq. There are sectarian elements who fight viciously because they fear being slaughtered by one another.

I still think it was worth the risk. I strongly suspect the administration has bungled the operation and that we could be in a better position today if we figured out the insurgency earlier. But I don't regret going at it alone, but I regret that we weren't good enough to make it a resounding success. Iraq has been humbling. And I don't think we'll be doing it again in the near future.

And despite the negative elements that I did not anticipate, the insurgency and chaos that has been difficult to quell, there are some positive things for the US that we've gotten out of Iraq, that I did not anticipate. One, we're getting a taste of what war is going to look like for the 21st century. We're training troops for the future. We're also starting to see that the democratic reformists in the Middle East are a bunch of bullshitters without any balls whatsoever. For years, "liberals" in the Middle East have been claiming that if the US didn't bail on them and supported them, got the guns from their heads, that we'd see reform. Well, it's looking more and more to me that these fuck faces, for the most part, have been trying to play us to their own advantage. Either they are incapble or disingenous, either way, they aren't to be trusted and don't deserve another opportunity. We've sacrificed too much for them, and it makes me long for the days of real politik, playing groups off one another in a cynical, British style foreign policy. I admit to having twinges of liberal guilt about bailing on the Kurds in 1991, deposing elected governments in Iran, playing Saddam off the Ayatollah's, and so forth. That guilt is fading and that's what they can look forward to in the future.

Enough.