I think the problem stems from having to make the case very simple to gain public support. WMD ( I think the arguement was there were existing chemical and biological stockpiles but the nuclear stuff was a program - personally I was more concerned about Saddam buying something from N.Korea or Pakistan ) makes for nice sound-bites. I liken this to FDR's less than candid approach to get a very isolationist America involved in WWII. If you think it has to be done, you make what case you can that will sell. Unfortunate, but probably the only way. ( "We're using VFP for your application because the fox head icon is very cool and if we use VB you'll get VB cooties in your data" <s> )

And I agree that the lack of any substantial WMD cache displays is a very very big problem in world ( and domestic ) opinion.

I do not absolve the intelligence or pentagon planning communities in any of this. An imperfect effort indeed. Especially the post-war occupation planning and execution. Lots of successes but lots of mistakes. Of course many of the successes are unknown by their nature and most mistakes are public.

But I do think the criticism would be more effective and more in the best interests of Iraq in the long run if it were less strident and more thoughtful and constructive. Being anti things is all well and good, but there are still problems to be solved.

( If they would just turn the whole thing over to you and me we could get this mess straightened out <bg> )

( oh, by the way, I've always wanted to mention I like the name TimbukOne <s> )

>Hi Charles.
>
>I agree with what you are saying. Whatever one may think about any particular president or other head of state, one must acknowledge that they are just one figure-head surrounded by, more than likely, some very, very clever and intelligent people who in turn are informed by world class intelligence communities. This must necessarily be so. We may not like the "frontman" (which is usually just an emotional response anyway) but the people behind him/her will be top-notch.
>
>I think the problem with Iraq, in so far as the layman is concerned, is that both the US and British repeatedly referred in the media to wmd, specifically nuclear. The silence from these parties is now, of course, deafening. Surely if anything had been found worth exploiting in the media to justify the war this would have been done by now?
>
>I appreciate the need to keep intelligence secret and to not let "them know what we know". Thats classic Sun-Tzu and is probably in every secret service handbook :) But nothing worth parading in the media iro wmd has been found. Nothing. Surely they would have found something by now?
>
>Of course absence of proof does not mean proof of absence but still this vacuum leaves huge doubt in the mind of us ignorant masses about the validity of the war. If the US could simply show a single nuclear bomb, even a dirty one, or some other really serious wmd that could have been used against us, or clear and supportive links to 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks then I think the anti-war demonstrators would at least have to give some credence to the thinking behind the move to war.
>
>On the other side of the coin I understand your point too. There are possibly far more complex and involved issues at play here involving who knows what other countries and parties. That the reason to go to war possibly involves other far more globally complex problems then whether Iraq was a wmd threat or not. Someday perhaps we may know the truth ...
>
>Later and thanks for the insights.
>
>
>
>
>>Hi Jos
>>
>>I think all of your points are very well-reasoned and well-expressed and I agree with most of it.
>>
>>I only question the premise that we were lied to about WMD. I don't believe stockpiles of WMD were necessary for the arguement that Saddam was a menace who had to be dealt with. I do believe that there was intelligence which has not been made public that made the case persuasively that the there was immanent danger. It was still a judgement call. I think Russia, France and China bear a share of responsibility in that their eagerness to let Saddam out of the box probably increased Bush's anxiety about delaying action. A united from from the civilized world against a most uncivilized regime would have allow for more patience.
>>
>>I think think judging decisions in hindsight is okay, as long as one understands that when the decision is made we don't have that hindsight.
>>
>>All that being said, I think it was a very large mistake to go into Iraq about 200,000 troops short. I am most concerned that the Syrian border was not effectively closed, and that places we knew were going to be a problem were not nailed down tight at the same time Baghdad was taken. I put some of this at Rumsfield's feet.
>>
>>I think there is more knowledge about what happened to certain people and weapons than is public because that is just how intelligence works. Things you know are more valuable if people don't know you know. I also believe that whatever one thinks of Bush or Cheney, they are not driven by petty motives. If they knew in October that there were stockpiles of sarin in a cache in the Bekaa that had been moved a few days before the war, for example, they would still sit on it and take the political hit. This is serious stuff and I think a President Kerry would have done the same thing. Even a President Clinton. I have no doubt Tony Blair would.
>>
>>This whole Iraq thing was political suicide. I know the public latched onto the pitch for WMDs as the sole justification for the war, but I think if one analyzes the case that was being made by the administration and others, there was lot more to it than that.
>>
>>Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this. I think the concerns of the 'international community' would have more validity if the international community had taken more responsiblity. I have very little respect for the U.N. as an instituition, but i have a lot of respect for many of the countries involved. I would like to see more of them take responsibility for some of dangers humanity faces. I don't believe American can go it alone. And I believe we came up short in many ways in assembling like-minded nations to act with us to deal with all this. I'm not an apologist for Bush. I just feel the criticism should take into account something besides political cant, and that is why I find your approach refreshing.
>>
>>