Debatable Hindsight

I must admit, I really thought there would be Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq. It wasn't that anyone had presented convincing evidence - most of it seemed to get shot down pretty quickly if it even looked plausible in the first place. It was the utter certainty which Bush and his officials presented. I figured they had other information which they couldn't present because it would betray the source. A highly-place informer in the Iraqi government, an ultra-secret satellite capability, or a broken communications link that they planned to use in the invasion as well. Or failing that, a well-thought-out plan to plant some and "discover" them with much fanfare.

And then there was Saddam Hussein's behavior; he certainly seemed like he had something to hide. It was only later that it was pointed out to me that although it was in his interest to convince the Americans he had no WMD, he would also want to leave his more local enemies in doubt. So one might expect some fairly evasive actions.

Bottom line: for there to be no WMD found, the Bush administration had to be collectively stupid enough to go in without enough evidence, but not evil enough to have a plan to plant some, and Hussein had to have really destroyed them all. I didn't think all of that would be true.
I still didn't think we should invade, for two reasons.

The first was that it sets a dangerous precedent to be starting a war without convincing evidence, or immediate threat. Sure, it took the threat of invasion to make Iraq allow the inspectors free access; but when they gave in we invaded anyway. Why would another country bow to pressure when there's nothing in it for them? What do we say when China claims Taiwan is developing nuclear weapons, and refuses to accept open inspections as evidence otherwise?

More concretely - Iraq, Iran and North Korea were named as the Axis of Evil. Iraq was accused of having WMD, denied it, and grudgingly allowed inspections. North Korea booted out its nuclear inspectors, announced it had nuclear weapons, and threatened to use them. Now Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons. Assuming it wishes not to be invaded, which example will it look to? If the Iranian leadership is not developing nuclear technology as fast as possible, they're not paying attention. They might be stopping short of developing weapons, but where's their incentive to do so? Any country that imagines it might come into conflict with the US in future will be doing the same.

The second reason is that the so-called War on Terror is not primarily a military conflict. There's no country we can invade to stop it; there's no risk that anyone will be occupying us. It is a war of opinion. If they can convince enough Muslims that we are a mortal threat, they can get continued support for their attacks, and maybe take over a country such as Pakistan (nuclear weapons) or Saudi Arabia (oil). If we can convince enough Muslims that we are all civilized human beings and the terrorists are murderous fanatics, we can reduce or even destroy their ability to carry out attacks. That's hard, long term work, much more about policing, diplomacy, intelligence, and most of all PR. Not military action.

So what does the Iraq invasion look like to a Muslim?
- It's not about WMD. The evidence was flimsy before the war and in its aftermath clearly wrong. If the Bush administration had good intelligence, as they claimed, then they clearly knew there weren't any weapons.
- It's not about freeing ordinary Iraqis. If the US cared about them, they wouldn't have supported Saddam's regime through the 1980's.
- It might be about oil. The US wants strategic control of oil supplies, and it took advantage of the situation to go get it.
- It might be about money. The Iraqi goverment wanted to start pricing its oil in Euros, which would damage the US foreign exchange position.
- It might be about military supremacy. The US wants to eliminate a regime that's prepared to take it on, and replace it with a friendly one; station some more troops in the Middle East; dominate the area.

What effect will all that have on an ordinary Muslim? Will it make them better disposed to the US, or more likely to help someone attack it?

About the stupidest thing the US could possibly have done was to re-open Abu Graibh prison (a symbol of all that was wrong with Saddam Hussein's regime) and start torturing prisoners there. Especially with acts designed to offend Muslims. What on earth were they thinking? Even if the claims about rotten apples are true, reopening Abu Graibh was a very dangerous move. Steps should have been taken to monitor it very closely, and make sure nothing like that happened. Instead we are left wondering if it was encouraged from the top. As the saying goes, sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

Nor has the US treatment of prisoners elsewhere been calculated to inspire trust. Even their own allies, the UK, had its citizens handed over from Guantanamo Bay because they did not believe they would get a fair trial. Others have been "rendered" to countries that will conduct torture for them. And there has been an effort from the top to justify torture.

The Bush administration talks about how they are fighting the terrorists overseas instead of at home. But they also complain that "foreign fighters" are carrying out most of the attacks. So in effect they have established an enormous military base, riddled with security holes, and Al Quaeda can come and attack it or not, at their leisure. What is stopping them attacking the US? Easier pickings at home. They decide when and where to attack; they can train elsewhere and send people in; they get a long term, low-level conflict where they can train troops and commanders, and analyze US tactics. They get a source of recruits hostile to the US - more with every civilian casualty US troops inflict. The pressure comes off their Afghan bases. And it's costing the United States US$100Bn a year - money that is an enormous strain on both the government's budget deficit and the record foreign debt.

What could we have done in Afghanistan to set up a sustainable, prosperous democracy, with US$400Bn and a willingness to take 2000+ casualties? The US gained enormous prestige with the Marshall plan, and deservedly so. It could have reminded the world of that spirit. Instead it invaded another country, with no apparent reconstruction plan, and no clear way of getting out. In Afghanistan there would have been a lot of margin for error; the US was clearing out the bases of a group that had launched an unprovoked attack on it, and could have been reconstructing a war-torn country out of its own generosity. In Iraq, anything that goes wrong is sheeted home straight to the US, and what they fix is what they broke themselves.

Before the invasion I was sent a mockup poster which read "Uncle oSAMa Says: I Want YOU To Invade Iraq. Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won’t be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall – we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please – invade Iraq. Make my day."
It sometimes makes me wonder - if George W Bush was an enemy agent, what more could he do wrong without giving himself away?

The Iraqi people can still pull this one out of the fire for George Bush. There appear to have been successful elections; ordinary Iraqis have voted in large numbers, ignoring the terrorists in their midst. Maybe they'll form a stable government. It's in their interest to do so (since the alternatives are continued US occupation or bloody civil war). A prosperous, stable democracy will make the whole thing look much better for the US in particular and the west in general. But success is not under the control of the US. Iraqis may want a government that the US doesn't like - Iran is just next door.

Let's hope that in a few years time I can link back to this entry as proof that George Bush lead a far-sighted, expert team, and I don't understand international politics.