Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I’ve had some interesting back and forth with Chris about international issues, in part about the ongoing relief effort in South Asia. I get the impression Chris is more of an internationalist than I am, and he seems to feel most of the world is on our side and we could do a better job of working with them. I disagree, and feel they should be doing a better job of working with us. Fair enough.

Yesterday he had a post regarding the end of the official search for WMD in Iraq. He also lists the things which were found, and has a link to the Interim Report. One thing I think must be looked at, though, is the entire situation at the time and how all the pieces came together rather than simply saying, “justifications for war must be rock solid.” And I’m not about to try and slam him. He has reasoned arguments, not blather.

The invasion of Iraq was not to rid Saddam of WMD. That was the reason for the sanctions imposed at the end of the Gulf War. There were many things going on, some of which we’ll not know about for years. But my view from the beginning was that there was a bigger picture in play. And the invasion didn’t have to take place. But there were people making plenty of money who had no interest in seeing pressure applied, and hoped that the cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam in 1991 would be forgotten. In fact, it was already out of most people’s minds. As were a dozen other UN resolutions. That agreement stated that Saddam simply needed to account for all his weapons. He refused. For twelve years. The cease-fire agreement was, at that point, void and any nation or nations were authorized to continue the war in accordance with the UN resolution. Nothing more need be done, except Tony Blair felt he needed additional UN support to cover him at home. Going to the UN at that point was, in my opinion, the biggest mistake. Perhaps Bush felt, as he said, the UN needed to take a stand to ensure its legitimacy. They failed. And continue to do so.

Could Saddam have attacked the US? Well, nineteen Arabs managed to do so. Did he have a missile that could deliver a warhead to the US? Only the human kind. And without solid knowledge of where his weapons programs stood, nobody could do anything except speculate based on his history.

We also need to consider what has become known as the Bush Doctrine. Actually, the concept began with Clinton’s frustrations over Saddam’s intransigence. Dubya took hold of the concept after 9/11, and turned it into policy. That doctrine is to bring representative government to the Middle East so that it is no longer a sinkhole generating hatred of everything not Muslim.

Iraq was the logical place to begin. Several nations were making noise about lifting all sanctions on Iraq, despite the fact Saddam had failed to comply with his agreements and the UN resolutions. Saddam paid a bounty to families of suicide bombers in Israel which kept their situation unstable. Saddam had working relationships with several terrorist groups, including at least one training camp within Iraq. He had already invaded Iran and Kuwait in the past, and was determined to be the top Arab leader no matter what it took. With Stalin as his political model, nothing good would come from his continued chest-pounding. And a newly elected representative government in the heart of the Middle East would cause other leaders in the region to wonder which of them might be next. It also allowed us to move our military presence out of Saudi Arabia, which removed some of the diplomatic leverage the Saud family exerts over US policy.

All of those were “rock solid justifications” in my view.

People who oppose our involvement in Iraq often see it as a distraction from the war on terrorism. Their focus always returns to Afghanistan, as if al Queda were the only group out there intent on bringing forth a new caliphate. They aren’t. Saddam was just as intent, although he saw himself as the new Caliph. And there are still others.

I would recommend two very interesting pieces by Norman Podhoretz in Commentary Magazine for anyone really interesting in understanding this issue. The first, World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win was published in September. It outlines very well the Bush Doctrine. The second, which will be released in the February edition, is already on line. It is The War Against World War IV, and covers the political fight about the military fight. I think Chris would recognize many of his own arguments within the text, although he may not want to be associated with some of the reasons for those arguments.

One standard argument about international relations before and after the invasion comes down to “the damage that this has cause to the reputation of the US has been immeasurable.” No, I don’t agree. If we look at the people who dislike the US after the battle, they are no different than the ones who disliked us before. In fact, our reputation among those who really matter in this war has been enhanced. It will only go down if we walk away. Remember how much anguish there was when Bush 41 didn’t support the uprisings in Iraq by the Kurds and Shia after the Gulf War? He couldn’t without going against the UN resolutions, and the coalition formed weren’t going to get involved again. But he took the blame. And many Iraqis had doubts about our willingness to see this through from the beginning because of it. The shrill voices of people like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and many others in the DNC heirarchy increased that concern.

The war in Iraq is simply another battle in the much larger war in pursuit of the Bush Doctrine. Opposition comes from those who are unwilling to see Bush succeed, and from those who support them without completely grasping the true intent. It is one thing to be opposed to Bush, yet another to be opposed to what he wants to accomplish. The war can be fought without battles, but only if people desirous of the kinds of change that doctrine envisions get behind the concept whether they like Bush or not. Iraq is not a diversion, and we didn’t invade because of WMD. The threat was there, and an opportunity to grow representative governments in a place that has never had them was there.

Only that will eliminate the global threat posed by al Queda and their ilk.