Between Iraq and a hard case - Part One: Weapons of mass justification?

When historians one day are trying to list the three defining historical moments of this decade three will stand out - 9/11, the election of Barack Obama, and George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. In a way they are all kinda interlinked, the need to root out the 9/11 terrorists was a justification to invade Iraq, and the calamitous fail that was the handling of the post-Saddam, Iraq insurgency was one of the key reasons why Barack Obama, and not H.R Clinton or J.S McCain will be reciting the pledge of allegiance come January 21st. In a desperate attempt to be at the forefront of defining historical moments (and often, getting around to blogging about them after they are so old, they can indeed be defined as history), I have already opined about 9/11 (which Paul D still refers to as the post where Alex showed clips of Comedians crying) and at great length about Barack Obama. Today, to what I expect will create much rejoicing on the streets of Baghdad, it's Iraq's turn to be blogged.

Since 2003, the war in Iraq has led to the loss of thousands of lives, billions of dollars in military spending, shredded relations between America and the Middle East (and Europe), the UN turning a more irrelevant shade of pale and America's ability as a spokesperson for human rights looking about as legitimate as Ron Jeremy extolling the virtues of abstinence. Oh, and Saddam's dead. Not bad for a little war that was only meant to last 6 weeks, and got its very own 'Mission accomplished' party, with its very own banner on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Iraq is probably the best ever example of how to win a war, and then make an absolute fail of how to lose the peace. Honestly, did the neo-cons actually believe the US would be greated as 'liberators', that centuries of animosity between Sunni's and Shia's would disappear, leaving them singing 'I got you babe' (Sunni's and Shia's = Sunny and Cher, geddit?) and worshipping at the altar of democracy? The flaws in logic, the holes in the strategy were almost elegant in their exquisite level of suckyness. Like turning up to a Spanish exam with a really cool pen, but having studied for Calculus instead.

But this blog post isn't going to be about lambasting the Bush administration for their epic fuck-up. It isn't even going to be about praising the Bush administration for stumbling upon the right answer to what seemed like certain defeat, in the form of the troop surge of late 2006. It's easy with the benefit of over five years hindsight to criticise. What I want to do is far more controversial, and probably far more suicidal to my attempts to be taken seriously as a 'guy who writes about stuff.' I want to try and justify the invasion. Or at least, show that in a different universe, where everything worked out differently, we might even consider patting W. on the back and buying him a beer.

Please don't stop reading, or switch back to DailyKos or The Standard or TeenHarlot or where ever it is you usually get your internet jollies from. Provided you don't suscribe to the ridiculous and offensive notion that the Iraq war was some sort of master plan by Bush and Cheney to create an American Empire and get some sweet, tasty oil, hear me out. (And if you do suscribe to that ridiculous and offensive notion, click on this link for something else that might interest you.). The primary justification for Iraq was because intelligence said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Given that events of the past 5 years have shown that intelligence was a bit, er, wrong, it seems a bit ludicrous to try and justify Iraq based on this. But we were not to know that in 2003. In 2003, the intelligence suggested that the decision that had to be made was 'given that Saddam Hussein had access to weapons of mass destruction, should the United States intervene to overthrow Saddam before these weapons get used?'

This question cuts to the very heart of the 'Bush Doctrine' (by using the words 'Bush Doctrine' in a sentence, I'm now more qualified to talk on this topic than Sarah Palin), and the idea that certain situations justify pre-emptive military action - attacking an enemy before that enemy attacks YOU. I guess two questions need to be kept in mind;

1) How probable is it that an enemy has weapons of mass destruction?
2) How likely is it that that enemy plans to use it on you?

No-one would say that in cases where an enemy tells you they have a nuke, and plan to drop it on your mother next Saturday, you would be unjustified in blowing up their nuclear facility and their capacity to strike before then. To rule out the idea of pre-emptive military action, to only strike in retalitation if attacked, not only removes your diplomatic options in a dangerous world but also compromises your ability to protect your own citizens.

I understand there needs to be a high threshold, before you invade a sovereign nation and attempt to cast yourself as the moral force and legitimate power. It's not enough to be reasonably sure of the existence of WMD's, you must be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, and also be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that if you do not strike first you will be attacked. We know in 2008, that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was not planning on giving these WMD's to Al Qaeda. But we didn't know that in 2003. In 2003 we believed, given all reasonable intelligence by the very best intelligence agencies in the world, that Saddam Hussein passed a threshold. And so did Bush. So while, Bush deserves his tarnished legacy for a complete and total failure of the peace process, perhaps we should cut him some slack on the war process.

I'd love to be proved wrong on this, either that Bush knew things we didn't or that the intelligence did not suggest othe WMD's were beyond reasonable doubt. The only thing cooler than making sad attempts to justify my support for the invasion when I was 15, while my friends were buying 'Good Bush, Bad Bush' shirts and hiding them from their parents, would be to write one of those ever-so-trendy blog posts screaming 'BSUH IZ A WAR CRINIMAL LOL!!1!!'

A second, and maybe more important question, would be to ask ' Well, even if there weren't any WMD's, is the war justified because they got rid of Saddam Hussein?' It's a really interesting question, and one that serves up many moral conundrums about military intervention to protect human rights in general. But as it's 1:38am and I have a disgracefully busy day ahead of me tomorrow, it will have to wait for my next blog post.