To those who believe the war in Iraq was justified, weapons of mass destruction simply aren’t the issue. Saddam Hussein and the fact that he is now gone are the issue.
“I’ll give you a historian’s judgment,” said Jerald Podair, a professor of American history at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wis. “Think about what the Middle East would be in 20 years if Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq. Now think of the region in 20 years now that he’s gone.
Which scenario is better? To make an omelet, you break eggs.”
The war, argued another supporter, sent important messages to other potential Middle East enemies. “Now the U.S. has a presence in the Middle East that enables us to keep our potential enemies a little more honest. Example: Libya,” said Tim O’Brien, a public-relations executive in Pittsburgh.
“And we have a better presence in Afghanistan. We’re making it more difficult for terrorism against America to culminate into a cohesive force.”
Hussein was an evil force in the region, said one academic who believes the war was justified.
Richard Stoll, a political science professor at Houston’s Rice University, said Hussein was a threat to his people and a threat to the region.
“After all, he had twice invaded his neighbors. I personally believe that if he thought he could control his neighbors [directly or indirectly], he would try,” Stoll said.
–Vincent J. Schodolski
CATO INSTITUTE
Weapons of mass destruction not a threat If U.S. military forces find weapons of mass destruction hidden in the Iraqi desert, will that mean the war has been justified?
There is a strong segment of public opinion that says no, arguing that, among other issues, Saddam Hussein had no way to deliver those weapons to the United States.
“The war wouldn’t be justified even if WMD are found,” said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. “WMD was never the threat. Even if Saddam had WMD . . . he did not have the long-range military capability to attack the United States.
“All the evidence indicates that Saddam may have had bad judgment but that he was deterrable.
In the first gulf war, he didn’t use chemical or biological weapons– presumably because he understood that the U.S. could retaliate with the full might of our nuclear arsenal,” Pena said.
“The only way Saddam would have been an undeterrable threat to the U.S. is if he gave WMD–nukes in particular, and it’s important to remember that no one was saying Saddam had a nuke–to terrorists, which was an argument the administration made.
But Saddam never gave WMD to the anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorist groups that he supported.
And the likelihood of Saddam giving WMD to Al Qaeda was next to zero.”
Al Qaeda was a threat to the Iraqi leader too.
“In fact, he had everything to fear from Al Qaeda because Osama bin Laden had no love for Saddam,” Pena said.
–Vincent J. Schodolski
