On the one hand not finding WMD's has weakened the Bush case for war. It has also weakened the general principle that non-proliferation is something that can be combated with pre-emptive action. It doesn't mean it couldn't be done again but it considerably weakens the argument both in the eyes of the American public and the world at large because it demonstrates the shortcomings in intelligence especially in a country that is as closed as Iraq was.
It would cost Bush considerable political capital to do the same thing in North Korea, for example. But Bush is Bush. If NK tested a nuclear weapon I don’t think that would be outside the realm of his personality to go at it again.
Three consecutive US administrations have believed that Saddam is a threat and that he was developing WMD’s. Saddam's behavior is directly to blame for that. If you look at statements over the past 12 years, it is always Saddam’s defiance of the UN that is mentioned at the same time as statements about weapons programs. I know that I personally believed Saddam was developing WMD’s based on his behavior. I guess one should learn that extrapolationg Saddam’s behavior on some rational basis doesn’t work.
The Pentagon Document proves that the post-war period was under-planned. But look at the news headlines from the past week. A more international peace-keeping force is being asked for and arranged. Troops levels are being reviewed. A Security Council Resolution is going to be proposed. This is exactly what is supposed to happen. Analyze, react. The strength of democracy is not in it’s perfect ability to plan but in it’s ability to respond. Many authors have referred to this as “the western way”.
How will history judge this war? Mostly by the results. It won’t report a Leningrad-like siege of Fortress Baghdad, that’s for sure. It also seems highly unlikely that history will report a domino-like effect and an expanding war like that at the onset of World War I. Maybe in the context of terrorism that is a premature conclusion however.
Maybe in a decade we will see either a Democratic Iraq with a few hundred coalition deaths or 10 years of guerilla war and another Saddam-like figure in power. I’m betting on the former. Well, there will always be the varying versions of course. Most people judge Vietnam as a failure because there was no obvious achievement. I’d point to the loss of life however most people consider both of the great wars to have been victories and they entailed a greater loss of life (WW I was similar, WW II much greater). Only a minority of people mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident or even the Cold War policy of containment.
History will tell.
|