The WMD Blame Game Revisited

This article is submitted as a follow-up to Content Producer Donna Schoenrock's submission, The WMD Blame Game.

Mrs. Schoenrock brings up an annoying habit of those Americans, particularly those belonging to the political left, opposed to the war in Iraq: the seemingly never-ending stream of accusations that President Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

She rightly points out that for the President to have lied, he would have to have believed that the intelligence provided by EVERY intelligence agency in the world was wrong, and then used that information as the basis for invading Iraq. Of course, there has never been any proof that President Bush actually lied about Saddam's weapons programs. There is every reason to believe that he relied on U.S. and allied intelligence assets, and trusted them to provide him with the best information they could gather. Intelligence is never perfect and is inaccurate more than most government officials would like. But you do the best you can with what you have.

Was the intelligence exaggerated? Maybe, but it most certainly wasn't fabricated. It is established fact that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. Did Saddam pose a direct threat to the United States? Maybe not to the U.S. mainland itself, but certainly to U.S. troops and interests in the Middle East, as well as to our allies in the region. That in and of itself poses a threat to our national security and to the well-being of our Middle East partners.

I particularly enjoyed the many quotes in the article from prominent Democratic politicians who supported the use of force against Iraq when it was fashionable to do so (that is when Bill Clinton was President and before the going got really tough during the current campaign). It is interesting to note how Bush has been incessantly attacked for acting on the same beliefs held by his Democratic predecessor.

Ms. Schoenrock is correct when she writes that "The burden of proof was never upon us." The burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein. After nearly two dozen United Nations resolutions, Hussein continued to obstruct inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and continued to defy the rest of the world with regard to his weapons programs.

Some have postulated that he was bluffing because he did not want to appear weak in the eyes of his Arab, Turkish, and Persian neighbors. Still others have opined that he resisted calls for transparency and accountability because he never believed the United States would go to war without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council (which he knew France and Russia would never allow). In either case, he gambled poorly.

With regard to the second scenario, though, the question becomes this: when is enough, enough? When does a nation decide that the United Nations has become impotent in its ability to confront global threats, real or perceived? And when does that nation then decide to take matters into its own hands?

President George W. Bush decided that almost twenty resolutions calling on Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction was enough. People complained that we should give Hussein more time, but how much more? He had already had 12 years. Do we extend that to 15? 20? A quarter century? War should always be the last option, but when will you ever force a dictator's hand if you keep granting him more time in the face of continued defiance?

Some of the member countries of the United Nations insisted that we have a mandate from the world body before launching an attack on Iraq. But that mandate had already been given. U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November of 2002, called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons. The resolution went on to state that Iraq "…will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

What could be more serious than the use of force? More sanctions? Sanctions had already been in place for twelve years, hurting the Iraqi people while Saddam and his Ba'athist regime remained isolated from the poverty and destruction outside of Baghdad. Still, the United States sought additional authorization from the U.N. But after multiple attempts at a new resolution, it became abundantly clear that no amount of diplomacy would ever get the Security Council to agree to take action against Saddam Hussein.

The countries with economic ties to Iraq may not have been willing to take action that would put their financial ventures at risk. But does that mean that we should allow those nations, under the banner of the U.N., to dictate our national security interests?

It is a fact of diplomatic life that nations will not always agree on the proper course of action to take when confronted with a security threat. In those instances the American President must then decide what the best course of action is for the United States to guarantee its national security, regardless of whether the United Nations is going to come along for the ride.

There is plenty of blame to go around in the debate about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. Pointing fingers accomplishes nothing. Instead we should be focused on making our intelligence gathering capability better, so that when our President is faced with the difficult choice to put American soldiers in harm's way, he will have the best information with which to make his decision.

Critics of the war have the benefit of hindsight, and as the old saying goes, "Hindsight is 20/20." President Bush had to make a decision based on the information he had at the time. Personally, I am glad that we have a President who is willing to make the hard decisions, good or bad, based on what is best for us, and not on what may be best for the world.