There's a lot in this BBC summary of the key points from the Iraq Survey Group. (All quotes below are from this linked summary.)
But if you are trying to boil the discussion down to its essentials for people who don't intend to spend a long time studying the issue, here's what seems to me to be the easiest to explain:
"Saddam Hussein's goal was evading and ultimately ending UN sanctions that severely restricted what he could import into Iraq."
To achieve that end, he was busily bribing those in France, Russia and elsewhere whom he believed could help him achieve that goal. That's why both Russia and France were trying to get sanctions lifted virtually up until the beginning of the war.
"Senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam would restart a nuclear programme if UN sanctions imposed after the end of the Gulf War were halted."
AND
"Saddam Hussein never abandoned his intentions to resume efforts in chemical weapons when UN sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favourable."
AND
"[Iraq] kept a few samples that would have been useful in starting a biological weapons programme, and it had a group of scientists knowledgeable about such weapons."
So Saddam didn't currently have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- but he was intent on possessing them just as soon as HIS coalition of the "coerced and the bribed" succeeded in getting sanctions lifted (by the latter) so that the weapons could be developed (by the former).
Over time, if no weapons were found, how could the US have justified keeping sanctions in place? And that's what Saddam was counting on.
The bottom line: We went to war against Saddam Hussein to make sure that weapons of mass destruction didn't fall into the hands of terrorists. If we hadn't gone to war in 2003 and sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would certainly have developed those weapons. And if we had waited to fight until we had airtight proof that Saddam possessed the weapons, the only difference would be that Saddam would have used those weapons on our troops -- and possibly given them to terrorists when it became clear he would lose.
Given that Saddam intended to develop the weapons, how can John Kerry argue that it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"? It seems that he's arguing that it would have been better to wait until Saddam had prohibited weapons and then take them away. Which is a little bit like a policeman saying that it's better to wait to apprehend a criminal AFTER he commits a murder, when there's blood on his hands, because it's easier to get a conviction. That' missing the point, isn't it?
But if you are trying to boil the discussion down to its essentials for people who don't intend to spend a long time studying the issue, here's what seems to me to be the easiest to explain:
"Saddam Hussein's goal was evading and ultimately ending UN sanctions that severely restricted what he could import into Iraq."
To achieve that end, he was busily bribing those in France, Russia and elsewhere whom he believed could help him achieve that goal. That's why both Russia and France were trying to get sanctions lifted virtually up until the beginning of the war.
"Senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam would restart a nuclear programme if UN sanctions imposed after the end of the Gulf War were halted."
AND
"Saddam Hussein never abandoned his intentions to resume efforts in chemical weapons when UN sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favourable."
AND
"[Iraq] kept a few samples that would have been useful in starting a biological weapons programme, and it had a group of scientists knowledgeable about such weapons."
So Saddam didn't currently have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- but he was intent on possessing them just as soon as HIS coalition of the "coerced and the bribed" succeeded in getting sanctions lifted (by the latter) so that the weapons could be developed (by the former).
Over time, if no weapons were found, how could the US have justified keeping sanctions in place? And that's what Saddam was counting on.
The bottom line: We went to war against Saddam Hussein to make sure that weapons of mass destruction didn't fall into the hands of terrorists. If we hadn't gone to war in 2003 and sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would certainly have developed those weapons. And if we had waited to fight until we had airtight proof that Saddam possessed the weapons, the only difference would be that Saddam would have used those weapons on our troops -- and possibly given them to terrorists when it became clear he would lose.
Given that Saddam intended to develop the weapons, how can John Kerry argue that it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"? It seems that he's arguing that it would have been better to wait until Saddam had prohibited weapons and then take them away. Which is a little bit like a policeman saying that it's better to wait to apprehend a criminal AFTER he commits a murder, when there's blood on his hands, because it's easier to get a conviction. That' missing the point, isn't it?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home