Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Many analysts in the CIA and other branches of government knew that the WMD claims the Powell made before the UN were a product of wishful thinking. Josef Wilson himself debunked the uranium claims. The terrorist connections were also internally contested prior to the invasion. All in all, invading Iraq had little to do with security.
This is a tough question, but it can be argued that the sanctions had successfully contained Saddam. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both made statements prior to 9-11 confirming that Sadaam's threat had been contained. This all changed after 9-11 when the administration realized that the public would now support an invasion, allowing them to fulfill that long-simmering neocon fantasy (a stable foothold in the Middle east and oil...what could go wrong?).
What we appear to differ on is whether or not the invasion of Iraq has done anything to make us more secure or the world more stable. I would argue that we've badly damaged our global credibility and steeply worsened our position in the Middle East. We certainly provided lots of fodder for Islamic extremists as we have confirmed all of their rantings about American imperialism.
What's the best way to deal with terrorist states? There are no easy answers, but sanctions or engagement with moderates within those countries probably wouldn't cause as much global angst.
|
The predominant thinking in all intelligence services at the time of the Iraq invasion was that there was a high probability that Saddam was hiding wmds, had the desire to build nukes (as evidenced by the neatly tucked away programs found since the invasion all set to be started again once international focus faded), and violating the constraints of the deal that ended the first Gulf War.
Whether it was "wishful thinking" or not is kind of a ridiculous argument IMO. Do you really think that Bush wished it to be true when he was about to invade the country? The prospect of embedded reporters detailing the grisly deaths of young Marines overcome by biological and chemical agents is hardly a rosy election picture. A more accurate statement perhaps is "feared it was true" or "couldn't risk the chance that they did exist or were being developed".
My whole point about sanctions is that they were not discouraging to state sponsors. Hussein retained power. Retained control over Iraq's oil. Continued to enrich himself and his cronies. Did pretty much whatever he wanted. Engaging "moderates" or others opposed to the regime in power resulted in how many dead in Iraq? The solutions you outlined have been tried for 30 years in the face of terrorism against the US and they have failed to limit its spread or remove terrorist minded leaders from power.