WMD's, Iraq and al-Qaeda

A noteworthy article by Stephen Hayes was published in this week's Weekly Standard.   Hayes undertook to review certain unclassified documents that had been collected in Iraq after we displaced Saddam's government. 

Hayes found documents with provocative titles.  They dealt with, among other things, the presence of al-Qaeda members in Iraq;  connections between Iraq and the Taliban;  information on Iraq's chemical weapons agents;  "denial and deception of WMD";  ricin research and development;  chemical agent purchase orders;  instructions to hide chemicals and equipment;   and "how to hide chemicals".  Hayes suggests that the US government has been insufficiently curious regarding the implications of these documents. 

Hayes also provides additional detailed historical information regarding contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq in another article.   Mark Levin corroborates these contacts further.  The significance of these contacts remains uncertain, however, because they are merely suggestive. 

Levin also excerpts directly from the joint resolution passed in 2002 authorizing military action in Iraq.  It clearly lists justifications for action including the threat to peace the nation of Iraq represented; its breach of international obligations; its aiding and harboring terrorists including al-Qaeda members; and its seeking to obtain WMD's.  According to Congress, it was not just current possession of WMD's that justified engagement.

The war effort continues, and the House voted recently that we should not precipitously withdraw.  Notwithstanding the omnipresent reports of body counts,  recent war efforts have been productive.  A constitution was recently passed, and parliamentary elections are on the horizon.  Moreover, our military has engaged its recent campaigns successfully.  An excellent article by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. recounts these positive military outcomes in considerable detail. 

Getting an objective peek at the overall situation in Iraq requires some digging.  The Bush administration has not heretofore used the bully pulpit in an effective manner.  But it needs to do so to bolster its point of view and to share with the American people information that would help them comprehend the justifiability of our actions, and the successes we are achieving.  The American people need details communicated in a compelling manner to counteract the partisan disinformation to which they have been subjected.

But Bush also needs to prepare the American people for future escalation or widening of the conflict that may become necessary.   Unhappy vibrations are emanating from Iran.

 

Comments

[Ed Cone]

"an objective peek at the overall situation in Iraq." God bless you for your sense of humor, Joe, and Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

[Joe Guarino]

It is good to find counterbalances to the daily barrage. Happy thanksgiving to you and yours, also, Ed.

[Roch101]

Joe, not to deflect from the bulk of your post, but on The Weekly Standard's motives -- its editor, William Kristol, is an ideologue of the worst kind. Before Bush even took office, he signed on to the Project for a New American Century's plan for remaking America's defenses: a position paper that called for military action against Iraq, Iran and North Koerea -- a plan that the authors admitted would be slow to implement without some catastrophic event -- "like a new Pearl Harbor."

Kristol is no nuetral observer. He currently serves as PNAC's chariman. He's trying to salvage his investment in an elitist think tank plan that was developed without public debate but swallowed as gospel by the intellectually uncurious Bush administration.

[This blog doesn not allow html in comments. You'll have to cut and paste the link to the PNAC document: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf]

[Lex]

Joe, on Monday the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish segments of Iraq's governing coalition approved a statement that, in effect, says it's OK for Iraqi insurgents to target American soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.conference.ap/index.html -- see 2nd graf.

Up to now I have opposed precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the grounds that, if nothing else, we owed it to Iraqis to try to fix some of the problems WE created for them. But in light of this decision by the Iraqi government, what further justification remains for staying in Iraq?

[David Boyd]

Lex, Bush has always said we'll leave if the Iraqis want us to leave and I agree. We'll wish them good luck and tell them we'll help them where we can with democracy and protecting their borders and warn them not to get involved with terrorists or a nuclear program, or we'll be back.

Joe, it'll be interesting to see what those documents contain beyond their titles. I hope Hayes gets his hands on them soon. It's absurd that government bureaucrats can keep this 'unclassified' information out of the hands of the public through administrative red tape.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I skimmed about 1/3 of the 90 page document you referenced including what appeared to be the relevant sections. I did not see a direct reference to advocating military action against these states (do you know the page where military action was advocated?-- correct me if I am not seeing it) but I do see these three nations highlighted as a concern. The authors do mention a need to maintain military superiority, and to develop a capability to conduct and prevail in major military actions simultaneously in two theaters. For a document published during the year 2000, before 9/11, I would regard those recommendations as prescient.

By the way, I am not ordinarily a Weekly Standard reader-- never really enjoyed it. When I learned of Hayes' articles, however, I attempted to purchase a hard copy. I tried three bookstores including the two major chains with a presence in Greensboro, and it was not stocked at any of these places!

Lex, the report of the compromise the Kurds and Shiites made with the Sunni is somewhat of a puzzlement. I have read in several places over the last week that the insurgency is in a bad state notwithstanding the large bombings that have dominated the news. If that is true, this may be a face-saving measure and a sign that the Sunni minority has been forced to reach out.

If it is not a face-saving measure, and merely represents appeasement and a dishonorable compromise, the Shiites and Kurds may soon be earning a diploma from the Neville Chamberlain School of Hard Knocks.

It has not been a primary objective to crush and defeat the Sunni in an overwhelming fashion. I am concerned about that, but time will tell if this strategy is vindicated.

David, I am curious also about the content of these many documents.