I prefer Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to — say — Tony Blair and Jack Straw. They more honest and probably more intelleigent. They are also in a position to be more grown up, since the Blair and Straw cannot tell us their real policies, even after the event: it’s just to embarrassing to say “We need to find out what the Americans want us to do and then do it.”
So the celebrated Wolfowitz quote about how they talked up WMDs because this was the reason that everyone could agree with, doesn’t shock me at all. They did that, and they are now paying the cost. What does shock me is that he went on to say that the humanitarian or liberal imperialist aspect, which everyone is now stressing, was not in itself a reason enough for the war: “The third [reason] by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.”
The reason this is frightening is simple. That third reason (the second was “terrorism”, relevant only if you’re an Israeli) is going to be all that’s left. And the risk to “American kids” persists for as long as there is an American garrison in Iraq. the long they’re there, the harder it will become to withdraw without conceding a huge victory to their opponents. Our opponents also, since there will be British troops in the American garrison and even if there aren’t, in any global war between Islam and America, we are on the American side, and quite right too.
But if one of America’s leading imperialists thinks, even after the war, that the maintenance of empire is not worth “American kids’ lives”, then they’re not going to be very good at imperialism.
As I read the interview Wolfowitz said the fundamental reasons were three: “One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two” He did indeed say that third was not a sufficient reason by itself to risk American kids’ lives; the logical follow-up being that the three combined were, and not, as you did, to simply eliminate the other two. And as far as I know the WTD was a terror operation aimed at the US and many others – Bali for example – have little to do with Israel.
I eliminate the first two because (a) the WMDs probably weren’t there, and, if they were, had been successfully deterred; and (b)there just weren’t any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda worth a damn. The jihadists have come to Iraq since the invasion. They weren’t there before. So that reason has gone as well. It is true that Saddam supported Palestinian terrorists. That’s why I said this was relevant (only) if you’re an Israeli. It’s not a sufficient reason to commit British troops to a war. Which leaves the third reason (and an unspoken but entirely understandable desire to get out of Saudi).