American:
Although I've stated this above, I'll reiterate to answer your question. Even 'if' Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, my thoughts on this war would not be changed -- the conditions for war still would not have been met. My objection to this war stems directly from the writing of the National Security Strategy in 2002, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Historically, countries invade other countries when their own land is under attack (or the land of an ally) or when they perceive a threat so imminent that they believe an attack to be inevitable. The mere possession of WMDs does not automatically mean that the US would be under attack by Saddam. Or England, or Italy, or Spain, or Norway, or Australia ...etc. However, the new national security strategy has changed the qualifications for a US-led war:
"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries ... The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
In other words, if the US 'anticipates' an adversary to be in possession of WMDs, the very possession of the weapons can now become the threat itself ... intent to use need not be imminent; indeed, intent is very subjective and certainly in the eye of the beholder. [A case could easily be made that had Saddam been 'friendly' with Bin Laden that he may provide Al Qaeda with WMDs, and given the 9/11 attack, we can say with some confidence that if Bin Laden were in possession, then a threat could be deemed 'sufficient.' However, there is no justification for the argument that WMDs in Iraq would serve as an imminent threat to the US, any more than WMDs in the US are an automatic threat to Iran, for example. (the new national security strategy calls for the US to develop WMDs -- it's part of their 'counterproliferation' program.)]
Now, when you consider that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the war is still being justified, the case for adapting the definition of 'imminent' changes from 'possession of WMDs' to 'prior possession' and/or 'capability of possession' and/or 'intent' of possession entirely by default (unless the latest NSS is to be re-written for specificity.) In other words, if the US doesn't like you, and you don't like the US, and you have the ability to make WMDs (any high school lab can make them) then you might be subjected to a US-led attack, even if you never meant them harm.
Where this becomes more dangerous, is when the doctrine is being interpreted and acted upon by a man willing to make unilateral decisions regarding war -- his own citizens did not, in the majority, favour the war, and worldwide opinion never once saw support for the war higher than 10%. Bush sits, literally unchecked, on the greatest weaponry arsenal the world has ever known. And now he's changing the definition of what justifies an attack on another country.
If this doesn't strike you as an unreasonable risk for the rest of the world to be subjected to, then I see no other way to make my argument.
[This message was edited by xpanda on January 29, 2004 at 11:14 AM.]
Although I've stated this above, I'll reiterate to answer your question. Even 'if' Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, my thoughts on this war would not be changed -- the conditions for war still would not have been met. My objection to this war stems directly from the writing of the National Security Strategy in 2002, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Historically, countries invade other countries when their own land is under attack (or the land of an ally) or when they perceive a threat so imminent that they believe an attack to be inevitable. The mere possession of WMDs does not automatically mean that the US would be under attack by Saddam. Or England, or Italy, or Spain, or Norway, or Australia ...etc. However, the new national security strategy has changed the qualifications for a US-led war:
"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries ... The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
In other words, if the US 'anticipates' an adversary to be in possession of WMDs, the very possession of the weapons can now become the threat itself ... intent to use need not be imminent; indeed, intent is very subjective and certainly in the eye of the beholder. [A case could easily be made that had Saddam been 'friendly' with Bin Laden that he may provide Al Qaeda with WMDs, and given the 9/11 attack, we can say with some confidence that if Bin Laden were in possession, then a threat could be deemed 'sufficient.' However, there is no justification for the argument that WMDs in Iraq would serve as an imminent threat to the US, any more than WMDs in the US are an automatic threat to Iran, for example. (the new national security strategy calls for the US to develop WMDs -- it's part of their 'counterproliferation' program.)]
Now, when you consider that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that the war is still being justified, the case for adapting the definition of 'imminent' changes from 'possession of WMDs' to 'prior possession' and/or 'capability of possession' and/or 'intent' of possession entirely by default (unless the latest NSS is to be re-written for specificity.) In other words, if the US doesn't like you, and you don't like the US, and you have the ability to make WMDs (any high school lab can make them) then you might be subjected to a US-led attack, even if you never meant them harm.
Where this becomes more dangerous, is when the doctrine is being interpreted and acted upon by a man willing to make unilateral decisions regarding war -- his own citizens did not, in the majority, favour the war, and worldwide opinion never once saw support for the war higher than 10%. Bush sits, literally unchecked, on the greatest weaponry arsenal the world has ever known. And now he's changing the definition of what justifies an attack on another country.
If this doesn't strike you as an unreasonable risk for the rest of the world to be subjected to, then I see no other way to make my argument.
[This message was edited by xpanda on January 29, 2004 at 11:14 AM.]
