Failure to find the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) does not prove
deception

First, the formal, legal definition of deception:

Deception is intentional misleading by falsehood spoken or acted. More
fully: Knowingly and willfully making a false statement or
representation, express or implied, pertaining to a present or past
existing fact. [Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition, 1979, page 366]

So, deception requires both a false statement and that it be made with
intent to mislead. It isn't sufficient that a statement be false;
intent to mislead is also required, so to prove that someone lied one
must prove both that the statement was false, and also that the speaker
knew it to be false. Simply being wrong isn't enough.


Some history is in order:

Before the second invasion of Iraq, the UN and every intelligence agency
in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. Why? Recall the following:

1. Saddam possessed and had used mustard gas and nerve gas on the
Iranians (in 1984-1988) and Kurds (in 1988).
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

2. Saddam had been trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. The
Israelis prevented success some years before Desert Storm, when in 1981
they destroyed the "research" reactor at Osirak.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/41osi.html

3. Saddam had already invaded two of his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait,
within ten years of each other, and had been threatening Saudi Arabia,
by word and deed.

4. Saddam acted like he had something to hide, playing endless games
with the UN and the UN Inspectors.

5. Saddam refused to honor his agreements, or to follow something like
sixteen UN Resolutions over the ten years since the liberation of Kuwait.

All in all, based on past behavior and the continuing threats made by
Saddam, the intelligence world did believe that Saddam was at the very
least pursuing WMDs, or already had them; the argument was only over how
long it would be until Saddam used or could use a nuclear weapon on
somebody. Israel seemed the most likely first victim, but one fears that
New York City would have been high in the target list.

Actually, with this kind of a record, it would have been gross
malpractice to assume the absence of WMDs. Consider the consequences of
being wrong: If one assumes WMDs exist, but they do not, the only
consequence is some wasted motion and political embarassment. But if
one assumes that the WMDs do not exist, but they do exist, the
consequence is a destroyed city and a million dead.

The net effect was that Iraq was deemed a clear and present danger, and
so was invaded, to preempt this horror scenario.


As is well known, after Iraq was occupied, no such weapons were ever
found. There are three theories on why, and all three may at the same
time be true, at least to some degree.

First, the WMDs (and/or the engineering documents) were taken out into
the desert and buried somewhere. Iraq is about the same land area as
California, but with about two thirds the population of California.
Most of Iraq is empty desert, so it's quite unlikely that that such
buried caches would ever be found, unless someone tipped the authorities
off. On the other hand, one would think someone would have talked by
now.

Second, the WMDs were handed over to Syria for safekeeping. During the
first invasion of Iraq, Saddam did send some part of his air force to
Iran to protect it from destruction by the US Air Force, so there is
precedent. (The Iranians never returned Saddam's airplanes.) Some
major part of the current insurgency in Iraq is based in Syria, so it's
plausible that Syria may be storing some or all of the WMDs for Saddam.
Most commonly mentioned are chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas.

Third, the WMDs never existed in the first place, the UN Inspection
regime plus sanctions having destroyed what had existed, and prevented
their replacement. The problem with this was that based on past
history, it was to be expected that Saddam would reconstitute his WMD
projects the minute the sanctions were lifted and the UN Inspectors were
withdrawn. Saddam had ignored all previous UN resolutions and
agreements, so there was no reason to believe that this time would be
any different.

At present, despite all the posturing and loud arguments, nobody has a
clue (never mind proof) as to which of these possibilities are true.


All in all, it appears that Saddam led the world to believe that he had
WMDs, on the theory that this would scare the world off, thus averting
the threatened invasion.

So, Saddam was the deceiver. But he outfoxed himself.


Joe Gwinn

Who cares! We are where we are and it does not matter who dropped us into
it or why.

I was vehemently opposed to this action from the beginning when the response
of many was to shout down anyone who questioned the sensibility of such
things as "unpatriotic" and "troop killer".

Now that we in this box, I firmly disagree with Cindy Sheehan although I
sympathize with her feelings.

We picked a fight that we cannot now afford to walk away from. To declare
victory and go home will simply prove to jihaddists that America IS a paper
tiger. This is not to mention the impact such a move would have on China,
North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc. To allow such a thing will
bring us a world of worry that makes the IRA London campaign look like a kid
with a couple firecrackers.

In Vietnam we could pull off such a trick because the Vietnamese strategic
goal was to drive us out of their country. The strategic goal of the
jihaddists is to "bring down" the West. This ain't about a piece of
territory, oil of Israel. Sadly, it appears we are losing ground in
Afghanistan and even Pakistan.

Like it or not, much of US security and influence is derived from the
"appearance of invincibility". Ancient and modern military history
repeatedly show that things go to Hell very quickly once that appearance of
invincibility is pierced. A single US cop is not able to control a crowd of
15 people because he/she has that kind of physical strength. The crowd is
controlled by their belief he/she will either immediately bring in more
resources or that if they attract the cop they will suffer retribution.
This is the appearance of invincibility at work.

It is too bad all the cheerleaders of 2003 thought this was going to be like
a John Wayne movie and now that it has gone on this long they want their
money back. They are sunshine patriots.

Why are all those "patriots" now talking their children and grandchildren
out of joining the military and Reserves? Shame on them! It is as if they
are saying "I was for the war when I thought someone else's kid was going
to fight for" (freeing Iraqis, protecting me against WAD, bringing
Democracy to Iraq, insert your own favorite reason).

Powell had it right when he said "Mr. President, you break it, you own it."
Too bad most Americans did not take the time to consider the potential costs
BEFORE. But we can even less afford to be impulsive again and to run away
from a fight that we literally and figuratively started.

We are simply going to have to leave it to historians 50 years from now to
figure out what was prudent and or necessary. Right now we have a fight for
survival on hands whether or not we consider it of our own making.

Kind of like being dropped out of a helicopter and being told you don't get
picked up until you clear the jungle between here and there. You really
ain't too concerned about the geopolitics or morality of the conflict. You
are focus on doing what is needed to be able to make it to the end.

Oh and by the way, I have talked with my daughter about attending USMA or
USNA; she has been actively recruited by both and given she wants to study
Civil Engineering and Foreign Relations, I think those are excellent places
to start her career. Instead she intends to attend one of those elitist
hotbeds like Princeton or Yale that produced such liberals as Geo. Bush or
Don Rumsfeld. So it goes.

Life is simply more complicated than ideologues (Left, Right or Religionist
(Christian and Taliban)) can conceive.


--
Regards,
Dewey Clark

In article b5_Qe.23080$FL1.10133@trnddc09, ??? says...

Why are all those "patriots" now talking their children and grandchildren
out of joining the military and Reserves? Shame on them! It is as if they
are saying "I was for the war when I thought someone else's kid was going
to fight for"

See also NY State govenor George Pataki. His son just graduated ROTC
and is now getting a deferment to go to B school. Guess 'ol georgie
didn't think the war would be lasting this long.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Well stated! I wonder why most people don't impose logic to situations that
are political, emotional or religious. It seems that the more I study a
situation, the more I realize that there more and more layers to the onion
that simple truths cannot be extracted without bias. Thus I learn more and
more that I know less and less untll I know that I know nothing. How is it
that some people are so sure that they know the truth about anything? The
only thing I DO know is that everything is a non-zero probability.