Is WMD really the deciding issue in the Iraq war?

Would WMD change the minds of the anti-war crowd?

Published on July 13, 2004 By Madine In Politics

Ever since a few weeks after coalition forces marched into Iraq, people who were against the war before it began have put forward the argument that the war is not justified because of the lack of WMD. This has also been used by people who were in favor of the war (like John Kerry and John Edwards) to criticize the Bush administration.

I have a question for the people on this site who are opposed to the war. If there had been several tons of chemical and/or biological weapons found in Iraq, would you change your mind and say the war was justified? If so, why? If not, what level of WMD, if any would be needed to justify the war?

There is a legitimate argument that President Bush put too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on other reasons. A failure in delivering an effective argument does not imply that the war was the wrong decision however.

If people want to argue that the presence of WMD stockpiles was a decisive issue in justifying the invasion of Iraq, then they better be able to explain why they would have supported the war if WMD stockpiles were found.

Comments (Page 1)

cactoblasta

on Jul 13, 2004

Personally no amount of NBCs in Iraq would convince me that the war was good for me; Australia is so far away that the fallout would have dissipated before reaching me, and the destruction of the US and continental Europe by an immense and overwhelming Iraqi nuclear stockpile would merely remove trade rivals.

However on a less flippant note I feel that a proven ability to actually use the weapons is more important than the size of the stockpile, although the stockpile is still important. For example the discovery of ICBMs or anything with a range which could reach beyond the Middle East (anything shorter than that and only low-yield weapons could be used due to prevailing winds and weather patterns). They would also need to be loaded with NBC warheads and primed to fire on short notice. Anything which took longer than a few hours to prime would be easy to spot via satellite and human intelligence and stop with either cruise missiles or an early counter-strike, and would therefore be a poor threat to say the least.

vincible

on Jul 13, 2004

If there was enough WMD, or sufficiently advanced weapons programs, to show that sanctions were not stopping Hussein from developing and/or manufacturing weapons, then I would say the war was justified.

The complete absence of weapons and the primitiveness of Hussein's weapons programs means (to me) that the old Clinton/Bush I policy of containment was sufficient to keep Hussein from becoming a threat, and therefore, the old policy should have continued (perhaps with some minor modifications).

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

"and the destruction of the US and continental Europe by an immense and overwhelming Iraqi nuclear stockpile would merely remove trade rivals.
"

A disheartening, if sadly characteristic, statement...

"For example the discovery of ICBMs or anything with a range which could reach beyond the Middle East "

Israel is in the Middle East, as is Kuwait, but the world had no problems with striking him to protect them previously.... Now, I suppose, self-defense is the only just cause for war. I hope we remember this during the next big European war.

cactoblasta

on Jul 13, 2004

My oil supply doesn't come from the MIddle East, and the bones thrown to my country from our involvement in Iraq have been meager to none - a dodgy and extremely ambiguous free trade agreement, a discount on tanks that aren't suited to any sort of deployment outside of grasslands/desert, a personal friendship with a President who might not even be there by the end of the year and the enmity of many in my own region.

In realpolitik terms Iraq was a mistake for Australia, not a necessity, as the US would have invaded anyway. For everything we gained we increased our own personal danger. If this was a question focused solely on the US, then I apologise for corrupting your arguments, but I don't accept that WMDs in Iraq is necessarily a terrible thing for my country (as Australia exported grain there in vast amounts, Saddam wouldn't immediately consider a weakling like Australia a threat or a foe had we not invaded).

The survival of Israel doesn't weigh heavily on my mind, nor does that of the region. In any event Saddam would be foolish to launch weapons at Israel, especially as he knew that they too had nuclear arms.

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

"In any event Saddam would be foolish to launch weapons at Israel, especially as he knew that they too had nuclear arms."

and yet he did during the first gulf war...

"The survival of Israel doesn't weigh heavily on my mind, nor does that of the region."

'nuff said.

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

I wrote an article awhile back that listed a bunch of articles I wrote well BEFORE we went into Iraq arguing why we needed to go in:

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=14114

WMD stockpiles were not one of the reasons.

What I dislike about the stockpile revisionism is that it's so disengenous. Are we to believe that if only we had found tons of Sarin gas or VX nerve agent in Iraq that the anti-war left would have somehow agreed that it was a good thing we went in? Of course not. They would have latched ont something else.

The people who yell loudest about the WMD stockpiles are the same people who were arguing that it was about the oil or claiming there'd be a half million casaulties or some other nonsense. They were against it before and they're still against it.

Which is their right. It only bugs me when they start to try to decide why we supported it (i.e. the other half of the population). As tempted as I am to write articles claiming that the left only opposed the war because they are myopic little fools, I don't. Similarly, I would appreciate it if they don't claim we were somehow misled into supporting the war for reasons we never considered important.

David St Hubbins

on Jul 13, 2004

I've posted my feelings on this in other threads. I do believe it's backwards to say the anti war people think the war was unjustified because of the lack of WMD. The truth is that WMD was the stated reason for going in. A subtle difference. Anyhoo, as I've posted in other threads: we've seen the UN speeches, the State of Union and British dossier, it's there for all to see that the stated reasons for going into Iraq had nothing to do with regime change or humaitarian aid, but rather that Iraq was threatening imminent attack, had the intent to atttack, and the means to attack.

When Bush asked other countries to join the coalition, the stated reasons were that Iraq was an imminent threat and they posessed massive stockpiles of WMDs including a nuclear program. This despite a decade of sanctions and no-fly zones within their own borders and intense inspections. Bush did not say "He's a tyrant, let's change the regime". He misled not only the American people but the rest of the world. International cooperation, whether through the UN or informally, lends legitimacy to a war; this is a basic tenet of Just War Doctrine. Dishonesty is not a good basis for international cooperation.

Blair and Bush have been backpeddling all week, with Blair conceding that proof of WMD may never be found and Bush defending the war as just, in spite of a Congressional report slamming CIA intelligence and the Bush Administration's proclivity to take the most dubious of information in the most negative possible connotation in order to spin their way toward justifying a war on Iraq. "The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons — were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday"
Link

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

The truth is that WMD was the stated reason for going in

WMD generically? There is a difference between WMD stockpiles and WMD programs. Saddam had WMD programs. I felt vindicated by the Kaye report. I was never concerned about stockpiles of anthrax or whatever and neither were most people who followed this stuff.

Just because you keep repeating the same stuff over and over doesn't make it true.

But thanks for sharing the Canadian view on things. I wasn't aware Canada was involved in Iraq in any way.

Did you read what Madine wrote or did you just cut and paste "standard anti-Bush response #1262". He asked a specific question which you just side-stepped to toss in your usual opinion of why you think the US went in.

Given the millions of Americans who still support why we went in, the WMD stockpile argument doesn't hold much water.

David St Hubbins

on Jul 13, 2004

But thanks for sharing the Canadian view on things. I wasn't aware Canada was involved in Iraq in any way.

There are 32 countries in the Bribealition - sorry, coalition, representing about a billion people, a small percentage of the world's population of 6 billion+. Public opinion across the world is generally against the invasion of Iraq and is split in America. So if it's OK with you, we, the majority of the people in the world, would like to participate in the debate as it pertains issues such as WWIII, nuclear winter, etc. that may directly affect us.

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

Well Canada I assume counts itself in the Cowardlition then? I care about Canada's opinion about the same as I would any other US state.

The "Bribealition" includes these members of the G8:

1) USA
2) UK
3) Japan
4) Italy

All of which are richer than Canada.

Plus you have Australia, South Korea (also richer than Canada), and most of Europe other than France, Germany, and Belgium (and a couple of others).

Most of the other remotely major countries didn't care particularly much (India and China for instance are relatively neutral).

russellmz2

on Jul 13, 2004

jon stewart made a good point a few weeks ago on the daily show.

paraphrasing from memory:
"1. has wmd's
2. anti-american rhethoric
3. totalitarian dictatorship
4. ties to al queda

you can't tell what country i just described."

Madine

on Jul 14, 2004

a discount on tanks that aren't suited to any sort of deployment outside of grasslands/desert

What sort of terrain were you expecting to deploy them to? The ocean?

a proven ability to actually use the weapons is more important than the size of the stockpile

So you are convinced it would be 100% impossible for terrorists to smuggle chem/bio weapons into Australia?

...the old Clinton/Bush I policy of containment was sufficient to keep Hussein from becoming a threat, and therefore, the old policy should have continued (perhaps with some minor modifications).

In 1998, Clinton's policy for Iraq became regime change.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

CNN December 1998

cactoblasta

on Jul 14, 2004

Madine:

What sort of terrain were you expecting to deploy them to? The ocean?

No. I can't imagine Australia ever deploying tanks unless the northern coast was overwhelmed, in which case we wouldn't be able to beat the Americans anyway (noone else has the transports or the supply capabilities to attack us). We've never ever sent heavy vehicles overseas, so there is no rational reason for having M1A1 Abrams tanks anyway. The terrain in any case is far better suited to aircraft as an opponent would be unlikely to be able to transport heavy vehicles through jungles. If an aggressor came from the south it would be all over before tanks could even be deployed; the loss of Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra would neatly cripple the defence and food supply of most of the country.

So you are convinced it would be 100% impossible for terrorists to smuggle chem/bio weapons into Australia?

Of course not, but they are unlikely to originate from Iraq - far more likely sources are Southeast Asian or North Asian, like North Korea and thefts from US bases in the Phillipines. Terrorists in the Middle East would almost certainly target the US or Europe over Australia for political and logistical reasons.

Draginol

on Jul 14, 2004

You do know they make airplanes right? Australia is a lot closer to Iraq than the US was to Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

cactoblasta

on Jul 14, 2004

Yes, but Australia isn't as significant a target. Noone cares enough to attack - it'd be like someone attacking Denmark for its government's position on the war on terror. Foreign apathy is one of a "middle power"'s greatest defences.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!