Shifting Sands

It would appear the President Bush is now coming up with alternative reasons for the war on Iraq. He is recently quioted as follows :

Quote:

---

Bush conceded to veteran interviewer Tim Russert that it was "correct" that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq but emphasized a different reason why the war was necessary.


"He had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network,"

---

Is this a reasonable thing to do ? to change the explanation for why the war was necessary. Or does this negate the legitimacy, if their was any, of the war ? Does the belief that the weapons were there justify the action, even if it turns out that there were none ?

I personally think it does, so long as the belief was a genuine one. If you believe someone has a gun to your head, you are entitled to react to it. Even if it turns out to be a banana, but only if the beleif is genuine and not just a matter of convenience.

The difficulty with the subsequent reasoning for the war on Iraq is the varied responses from different parts of the US administration and other coalition members.

Paul Wolfowitz appears to be confirming that the WMD issue was played deliberately because other geopolitical reasons were not considered robust enough to proceed with. That is, they knew that Iraq posed no immediate threat. It is one thing to say a person is holding a gun (which might be a banana) it is quite another to say I will attack him because I think he will visit a fruit shop next week.

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN's instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I'll get me coat :( )

Would perhaps the fact that the regime in power constantly prevented proper inspection of their fruit bowl have added to the problems.

If they had no such weapons, then the sensible thing to do would be to not only allow the inspections, but to do everything possible to assist them. That way they could be seen to be without bananas much sooner. The fact that they were obstructive tended to suggest that they did have such weapons. Perhaps they wanted others to see them as a greater power than they were. I cannot believe that a decade of intransigance was merely the pig-headedness of the leader.

Indeed

Saddam had made many regional enemies. There is little doubt that he was deliberately tying to make Iraq appear robust.

However, the UN inspectors were back in and they were making progess. Hans Blix wished to continue and said so. He also said real progress was being made. The UN position appears somewhat more correct than it was given credit for.

sorry, i just really like your gun - banana analogy.. :D ;) ;) :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@8 February 2004 - 18:40
Indeed

Saddam had made many regional enemies. There is little doubt that he was deliberately tying to make Iraq appear robust.

However, the UN inspectors were back in and they were making progess. Hans Blix wished to continue and said so. He also said real progress was being made. The UN position appears somewhat more correct than it was given credit for.

---

The question really is one of balance. If you think that someone presents a clear and present danger to your country.

You must look at the likeliehood of something happening and the consequences if it does. Then decide on appropriate action. It is known as risk assesment.

I think a lot of people look at one thing or the other and not both. There is no point in over reactig to a situation where either the likelihood is very low, or the consequences trivial. However if there is a reasonable chance, with dire consequences then you must act. The only remaining question would be, what constitutes over-reaction ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag+8 February 2004 - 18:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag @ 8 February 2004 - 18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@8 February 2004 - 18:40
Indeed

Saddam had made many regional enemies. There is little doubt that he was deliberately tying to make Iraq appear robust.

However, the UN inspectors were back in and they were making progess. Hans Blix wished to continue and said so. He also said real progress was being made. The UN position appears somewhat more correct than it was given credit for.

---

The question really is one of balance. If you think that someone presents a clear and present danger to your country.

You must look at the likeliehood of something happening and the consequences if it does. Then decide on appropriate action. It is known as risk assesment.

I think a lot of people look at one thing or the other and not both. There is no point in over reactig to a situation where either the likelihood is very low, or the consequences trivial. However if there is a reasonable chance, with dire consequences then you must act. The only remaining question would be, what constitutes over-reaction ? [/b][/quote]
Or indeed, the true nature of the threat. Saddams wars and territorial claims were never more than small strips of land adjacent to Iraq. He was a very local bully.

It is true that he would have been a problem if he had developed nuclear weapons, but the truth is he wasn&#39;t even close. The UN inspectors determined that very early in their work.

In my view North Korea is a far more potent and dangerous threat than Iraq could have even hoped.

There appears to have been a desire to conduct this war regardless. It will, I think, prove to be ultimately counter-productive. However, I remain open to the possibility that some good may yet come of it.

I tend to agree with you, with regard to the necessity, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. However like I said, the consequesnces must also be factored in.

I have however to suggest that the people of Kuwait may take your description of their country as "small strips of land adjacent to Iraq" a bit insulting to their Nation. Accurate as it may be.

As may the Kurds of Northern Iraq take your description of him as a "very ocal bully" to be somewhat euphamistic, or perhaps insensitive.

A fair point. Kuwait was part of the Basra district of the old Ottoman Empire and as such was very adjacent. The borders of the region are at best fluid.

The Kurds were promised their own country back during the First World War when they assisted the Allies. A promise that has still to be honoured in my view. The UK&#39;s role in this matter during the 1920s was not good. I doubt if we will set that straight this time either. To many political hot potatoes to handle despite the reasonableness of the request.

It was more the large number of Kurds which he killed using chemical weapons I was thinking about.