In retrospect, without wmds, iraq posed less of a threat and thus we didnt have to go to war in 2003
I think the whole WMD issue was a side-show. Saddam had spent 12 years thumbing his nose at us and proclaiming himself the Great Arab Defier. In recent years he was claiming the Islamist mantle too. Sanctions were crumbling, thanks in no small measure to our "allies" France and Russia. We bearing the costs of containment, which were rising higher and higher for a decreasing benefit. It was only a matter of time until sanctions dissolved altogether, Saddam emerged triumphant, and France made billion.
After 9/11 we could not afford to sit and wait for it. We had to send the message that business as usual in the Arab world was no longer going to be tolerated. Saddam was unfinished business, so he was the one that got clobbered. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. (This is supposing that Iraqi-financed and taught terrorists did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda, and were not striking up a deal, and recent evidence points the other way) I do believe that the message has been heard and all Arab dictators are calculating just how far they have to respond.
You notice that WMDs don't even enter into this line of argument, and never did. What you need is the malice, the money, the know-how, and the safe haven, and Saddam certainly had all three to provide. |
