Let's revisit a dead horse.
There seem to be three main groups of Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq:
- Those who believed there was a direct threat to the US from Iraqi WMD and that, in and of itself, warranted the invasion (although, granted this includes those who have since reconsidered this in light of the evidence).
- Those who believed there were multiple reasons that warranted the invasion including possible WMD, noncompliance with UN Resolution 1441, and human rights violations.
- Those who may or may not have believed in either 1 or 2 but to whom non-invasion solutions to either would not have really mattered, as they believed we needed to occupy a Middle Eastern country in order to pull our troops from Saudi Arabia, as well as to send shockwaves through the Middle East, as part of a longer-term plan in the War on Terror.
Granted, many folks may straddle those categories, but for the sake of simplicity, let's start with those groupings.
Wolfowitz clearly subscribes to some variation of #3; although he may have subscribed to parts of the others, he does seem to be saying any ME country would have sufficed:
The other factor [in addition to WMD] he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.
"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East," Mr Wolfowitz is quoted as saying.
He didn't say it had to be Iraq...just that getting our troops out of Saudia Arabia was a "huge" factor.
Now I'm willing to agree that the situation is complicated, but I stop short of agreeing that the individual reasons for the invasion don't need to hold water because, as there were so many of them, the most convenient at any point in time will do. This to me argues that we didn't need any reason, because if it doesn't bother us that one fell flat, would it bother us if two fell flat, or three...where's the cutoff?
So there's the horse...dead as a door knob...and now from the saftey of this "mission-accomplished" position, can you answer whether or not you subscribe to #3?
It's relevant for the future...
Somewhat related Update: U.S. Weapons Hunt Shifts Focus to 'Intent' in Iraq.
The new direction of trying to determine whether the former Iraqi president was actively pursuing the development of banned arms reflects the Bush administration's evolving public rationale for the war on Iraq.
emphasis mine
Recent Comments