ok it is a matter of style. Perhaps it came out more confrontational than I had meant it. Just the same, fair is fair. If you have questions, I will answer them. But like I said, my main goal is to have some clarity on what we expect. So since you ask, here are my answers:
> what you expect in terms of WMD outcome?
Not much. There will be some discovery of chemical weapons and perhaps (though not very likely) some bio weapons and no nuclear weapons or precursors of. There will also be no extensive procurement program that could survive without western cooperation. Just the same, the administration will claim that Saddam was a threat anyway because he could have, would have, tried to, whatever to bring apocalypse to the world. Big on theory, and light on practice.
> if we don't find any of the mobile chem labs, will we continue to look for them forever?
No. In fact the issue will not even be brought up. The "assumption" will be that they were destroyed in the war. And whatever chemical stockpiles are found will be confused with mobile labs.
> Will we consider our assumptions flawed?
Not a chance! Bush will never admit that he was wrong or that he could have gone about it better no matter what the outcome.
> we do find them, will we consider it a win?
Certainly. If there is clear evidence that Saddam had an extensive WMD program. That is to say, he had the means (or a near completion program) for mass production and delivery of bio and nuclear weapons, then I will agree that UN failed completely in its inspections and that invasion was justified. But finding a few stockpiles of old material that we sold him in the past won't do it.
> How many should we find?
To convince me that Saddam was the threat that Bush is making him to be, plenty along with the ability to replenish them.
> What if rather than stopping its proliferation, somehow they all end up in terrorist hands?
Then Bush has failed to stop the danger he claims the war would prevent.
> What if Saddam decides now that he is going to be attacked no matter what, he is going to fire every 100 of the long ranged missiles into a highly concentrated area in Kuwaiti desert and kill most of our troops.
I think that would qualify as clearly underestimating the casualties of war. A court martial should be held if 10s of thousands of US troops end up dead. I have not heard the administration prepare the public for casualties. Their tone has been one of "this will be done and over with in a couple of weeks".
Questions 7, 9, and 10 have been answered in above paragraph too.
Now I have parameters that I can evaluate my own expectations. At least within the narrow focus of this post. Missing from here are future regime of Iraq, the effects on US economy, the effects on international community, the possible terrorist backlash, etc. But at least with regards to WMD findings in Iraq, I can be proven right or wrong one way or another.
These are questions that everyone should ask themselves and take positions on before hand. Otherwise, we could very well still find ourselves in Iraq some 10 years from now.
Sun Tzu |
