|
I don't care much about all the intricate details of what Iraq may have had or didn't have. Of course, it would have been better in the ensuing debate had we discovered all the WMD we thought Saddam had and, of course, had we found evidence of an ongoing effort to build nukes, all the better.
The fact--history will show this in due course--is that WMD was not the key reason for going into Iraq. It was the cover--like arresting a Mafia don for jaywalking as a pretext for holding him 72 hours while you grill him. The truth is, it was taking the offensive against extranational terrorism and the best way to counterbalance that threat was to estabish a beachhead in the ME. Iraq was the ideal fallguy because of its appearant violation of WMD resolutions and also very important was its geopgraphical position between the two leading national supporters of terrorism, Iraq and Syria. Never mind that terrorists groups weren't centered in Iraq. Boundary lines are just lines on a map.
Any serious projection of events stemming from our taking out the Taliban and disrupting AQ would make Iraq the potential locus of future terrorist santuaries. We acted when momentum was in our favor. If we can sustain our efforts in Iraq and succeed in seeing to the creation of a viable democratic country there, history will vindicate our decision. Never are things sweet and smooth in an armed struggle. Those who get tangled up in legalities and cite mistakes made lose sight of this and ultimately the larger picture. So, while I think it is fine to discuss the WMD details and such, no points won by detractors from Iraq make any difference to me when it comes to the larger picture. It had to be done; sorry the cover story evaporated. Let's get 'er done.
__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)
|