January 26, 2004
WHEN YOU KNOW FOR SURE, IT'S TOO LATE:
From Iraq to Libya, US knew little on weapons: Doubts that Hussein had WMD raise questions about war's rationale and intelligence reliability. (Peter Grier, 1/27/04, The Christian Science Monitor)
When it comes to unconventional weapons, Iraq may have been far from the most dangerous country in the world after all. In recent days a string of surprising revelations has scrambled the world's proliferation threat assessments.Iraq's weapons programs were apparently in shambles, for instance, while Libya's were surprisingly advanced. Pakistan's nuclear scientists might have been rogue agents, proffering secrets for cash. And it appears that North Korea may be the most advanced rogue nuclear nation of all, with an advanced capacity to produce fissile material.
The bottom line: In the shadowy world of intelligence, judging capacities to produce biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons is among the most difficult estimating jobs of all.
"These intelligence estimates are not good enough to support a policy of preemptive war," says Joseph Cirincione, of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington D.C.
To the contrary, these intelligence failures suggest that it will have to suffice that a regime is hostile to us in order to justify our pre-emption, because we can never know how close they are to having WMD. Mr. Cirincione can't really be suggesting that we wait and see if these regimes use the weapons and then react can he? Posted by Orrin Judd at January 26, 2004 2:52 PM
That would be the law-enforcement way of treating international terrorism, and Mr. Cirincione is probably entirely serious about it.
Much as people have missed the fundamental way the President is reshaping domestic policy with his Opportunity/Ownership Society approach, they also seem to miss the fact that he has rejected the law-enforcement approach to terror for something more radical -- and that he really means it when he talks about it. As the President has said more than once, the tyrant (Saddam Hussein) will never use a weapon of mass destruction again, or threaten. Of that, there is NO doubt. That his people are better off is a bonus to us, although it's certainly not an insignificant thing for one nation to give to another.
Posted by: kevin whited at January 26, 2004 3:00 PMIn fact, it can be argued that the Adminstration was even willing to approach Iraq as a law enforcement issue, so far as it was credible. It asked the UN to yell to a suspect: "Freeze, turn around and put your arms opver your head." The UN did so, about seventeen times, only to have the suspect continue to make suspicious movements under his coat, reaching for this bulky thing in his pocket... What credible law enforcement would just wait to see the shinny end of an incoming bullet before it incapacitates the suspect.
Posted by: MG at January 26, 2004 3:11 PMGood analogy by MG. The US was like a policeman telling a suspect (Iraq) to put their hands up. Iraq instead made threatening moves and the US was forced to shoot. The fact that Iraq's gun wasn't loaded (i.e. no ready WMDs) doesn't mean the US wasn't justified in protecting itself.
Posted by: AWW at January 26, 2004 3:22 PMWhat I want to know is who was more clueless: The CIA or Saddam? Isn't it relevant that the CEO did know they didn't have WMD. Why should any outsider be smarter than he is?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 27, 2004 1:55 AMAll excellent points. Why do all the debates over preventative war and just war(on both sides) focus entirely on the question of Iraq's objective capacities? And why is the burden of determing objective truth on that score entirely one-sided?
Isn't a leader screaming "Death to America" an element of the equation? Does international law and morality permit unlimited hostile rhetoric provided there is a limited capacity or even actual intention to act on it? I think not, but maybe that is just because my mother raised me to be particularly sensitive to the feelings of nuclear hyper-powers with low self-esteem.
Posted by: Peter B at January 27, 2004 9:11 AM