| Liberation was always one of the rationales for going into Iraq. In addition was the idea that we would change the dynamics in the region, and help create conditions favoring further democratization, thus undermining terrorists and solidifying US influence. In addition, the extent of stockpiles was always beside the point, since it does not take extensive stockpiles to supply terrorists with sufficient sarin or anthrax or whatnot to commit a much worse outrage than the attack on the twin towers. It is unfortunate that we got stuck on the stockpiles, but everyone thought they were there, really, and it seemed the best way to move things forward. To my mind, the state of WMDs is irrelevant, even retrospectively, to the argument for going to war, although an embarrassment, of course. As long as the materials were there, and the scientists and technicians were kept available, all it would have taken to produce a dangerous amount after sanctions were lifted was a few months. |
