I remember the WoMD argument. Many people don't realise that they tried several other 'justifications' in the weeks before the invasion, chronologically going from:
- Iraq has links to Al Qeida (but too many of the Intelligence community denied this, so the west didn't buy it); to
- Iraq has nuclear weapons (again, too many weapons inspectors / intel said no he didn't, so similar result); to
- Well, Iraq wants nuclear weapons (no history of it, so no one paid attention); to
- Well he has WoMD. This term was just vague enough that it caused a lot of fear in many people. When the UN's chief weapons inspector for most of the preceding years stated that Iraq didn't, and the chemical weapons the US supplied him had far exceeded their shelf life, and they didn't have the facilities to create more...he was heavily attacked by the US goverment. There's only one reason to behave like that.
When they asked Iraq to prove he didn't have WoMD (you can't prove a negative, and they knew that), I knew that war was imminent.
Tony Blair's later comments that the Intel was 'sexed up' was not a surprise at all.
I never did find out the reason for that invasion. Plenty of supposition - 3 even made coherent theories, but nothing concrete.
And wierdly, with the invasion under way, the politicians talked like they hadn't even thought how to end it - and it turns out they hadn't. For supposedly bright men, this was one of the most bamboozling aspects of the invasion. The surprise they suffered when it all went pear shaped. This tends only to happen when people are heavily censored from talking about what could go wrong...and yet it wasn't difficult at all to see the general nature of problems that could arise.