yitwail wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:When it became clear that the Administration was, publicly, limiting their rational for invasion to the presence of WMDs in Iraq, I thought it a big mistake born of cynicism about the ability of the American people to comprehend anything more sophisticated than personal threat.
Now that I see so many people unable to consider the war in any context other than the failed search for WMDs, I have to admit that maybe the Administration's cynicism was justified.
so you're saying that if the administration had told the people the real reason for invading Iraq, they would have balked, and so WMD & links to Al Qaeda were hyped as a pretext?
WMDs in the possession of Saddam
was a
real reason for invading Iraq, it just wasn't the only one, and, frankly, it wasn't the most compelling one either.
It was the one reason that might be expected to generate personal fear in the average American however.
At the time I did not believe that if the Adminstration had provided the full reasoning for invasion to the American people they would not have balked.
Let's be clear, there was no sinister and secret reason for invading. The real reasons were not that W wanted to smack Saddam for trying to kill his Pop, or that the Oil-meisters paid him to invade the country.
The full range of reasons was not even kept secret. Anyone who cared to would have learned the reasons from Adminstration spokespeople as well as supporters in various media outlets. Sadly, only a very small portion of our society actually care to remain current on what is happening in the world.
Arguably, the majority of Americans tend to form their opinions based on headlines and sound-bytes as well as the one or two sentence summaries provided by their friends and families who do read the papers or watch the News. It seems clear that this was the belief of the Administration, and they were willing to bet it all on the one of several reasons that had the biggest punch in a headline or sound-byte: Saddam has WMDS which he could use on us or provide to terrorists who would use them on us. The line about the "smoking gun" being a mushroom cloud over Baltimore was superb PR.
Of course there were other reasons:
1) Saddam was a brutal dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of his citizens, and had megalomaniacal desires to rule the region.
2) The Middle East is the source of our economy's life blood - oil, and of the gravest threat to our way of life - Islamo fascism. We need something very close to a western democracy in the Middle East to offer the angry and oppressed an alternative to radical Islam.
3) There was evidence that there were, at least, budding connections between Saddam and al-Qiada
#2 is the best reason for invading Iraq, but it is cerebral in nature, not visceral, and the Administration, apparently, believed they needed a visceral reason to engage the support of Americans.
#1 is visceral, but it appears the Administration didn't want to try and count on the altruistic spirit of the American people. Notice however that when WMDs proved to be problematic, the Administration almost immediately changed gears and trumpeted about how Saddam was such a bad guy and the Iraqi people deserved our help. Yes, they did, but so do a lot of people in the world, and it is legitimate to ask why the Iraqis but not the Sudanese? (Just as it was a legitimate to ask why the Serbian muslims but not Rwandans - funny though how this question was so seldomly asked). Personally, I'm all for intervention in any place where there is massive suffering, but that is clearly not a widely held position on either the Left or the Right.
Taken together, these four reasons, to my mind, provide a compelling justification for invasion, but they do take some small degree of thought to appreciate. Apparently the Administration didn't trust the American people to exercise even this small degree of thought and instead counted on them reacting viscerally: Fear of WMDs. It appears that they got a not entirely unexpected bonus of a visceral sense of revenge for 9/11.
I think that if the Adminstration had explained the full set of reasons for invading Iraq, the American people would not have balked, and when one of these reasons (WMDs) unexpectedly proved to be inaccurate there would not have been a sense that they had been snookered.
The point made in my prior post is that my faith in the American people may not be justified and what I considered cynicism on the part of the Administration might have been realism, because now that WMDs have not proven to be an accurate reason for invading, many of the people who formerly supported the war are unable to think beyond what they were told in headlines and sound-bytes, and the people who formerly did not support the war are having success with making the absence of WMDs an effective headline and sound-byte means of persuasion to their position.