“I think it’s a moot point.”
That was White House Chief of Staff Andy Card today on whether pre-war claims about Iraq’s WMD capacity were “faulty.”
Hmmm, so the entire pre-text for war is now a moot point. So what Andy is trying to say is… if the US wants to invade another country it can come up with some pie in the sky reasoning, go and do it and pretend that the reasons put forward to justify the invasion don’t actually mean anything.
This post actually reminded me of a conversation I had with some friends the other day. We were talking about the fact that the US administration’s invasion of Iraq has done more to increase nuclear proliferation than it has to quell it. One of my friends pointed out that it seems that most countries, particularly those named in Dubya’s (in)famous ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, have now announced plans to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. In all cases where there has been a real threat because there is credible evidence that a country has nuclear capabilities, the US has taken a diplomatic approach to calm the situation.
So this begs the question, why then was the US so quick to invade Iraq? If there was credible evidence that Saddam truly had WMD, would the US have invaded, or would they have instead, as they have on all other occasions, negotiated and applied diplomatic pressure?
(The third Iraq war started on March 17th 2003. Nearly nine months have passed, and despite inspectors being deployed around the country not one piece of credible evidence of a nuclear or biological weapons program has been uncovered.)