RRC:
Regarding the Intel. pre-invasion, there were 2 reports of Iraq attempting to procure Uranium 235 (an element that can be easily enriched into Uranium 285, a high explosive) from Korean and African sources... These were found by the British Intelligence Service, and disseminated to friendly NATO countries. BIS later issued a follow up report that the previous report was not credible, and that was followed by Swiss, German GS-9, and Canada's CSIS sigs reports that confirmed the follow-up report (The intel agencies listed are all electronic monitoring attache's to their Intelligence Services). The CIA, NSA and NSIA all reporting to HLSA all discounted the original reports of Iraq attempting to procure Nuclear fissable materials. This was in 2002, I believe in December previous to the address to the UN.
Now, the Executive Branch had sat on that report and returns for a while because, Iraq under Saddam Hussein did the unthinkable at the end of December 2002... They complied with full disclosure of all CBRN (Chem, Bio, Radiological and Nuclear) projects. They dumped literally 4000 pages and 100 CDr's worth of information on the front doorstep of the UN. The information contained therein has for the most part been proven as true.
The UN inspectors had been given unfettered and open access to any site they asked permission to inspect, and un-monitored access to every scientist they requested. Iraq was complying... some say too little, too late, but I say, they had given up already... The writing was on the wall for Saddam, and the only question was did he give up power to Uday & Qussay, or let the rest of the world flood in... Like him, or hate him, his bluster had gotten him into a lot of trouble, and he was doing what he could to retain all the power he could until the bitter end.
Now, here's where it gets interesting:
The fact that Iraq had actually complied with the information and access requests working in Saddam's favour, the premise behind the invasion of Iraq became a problem. He had complied with UN inspectors, and order to produce documentation about every project regarding CBRN weapons, and their delivery systems.... At this point, Bush and Blair had to either: Verify all the data that had been given (which would take months) or downplay the return of all the data as blatant falsehoods, and an attempt to stall the invasion; or, pretty much ignore the information and the fact there was compliance, and go in anyway. The third option was the more expedient politically for Britian, because BIS reports are lettered top secret, and the US because Bush didn't want to seem hesitant for a moment... Also, a massive build up in Saudi Arabia and Jordanian air bases and military installations is costly, people don't like to see that kind of a build up, and not get any action out of it.
The problem becomes this, and I'll use infinitives because this kind of situation has happened before in history, and it'll probably happen again... we humans aren't the brightest lot ever: If one nation or a group of nations forces another to comply with their orders (because of superior military force) lest they face invasion, the seiged nation complies with said orders, and the others go on in anyhow... what moral ground to the invaders have?
Basically, I look at it like this: there were numerous other places the US could have gone to help people in a lot more distress and who've been oppressed for decades longer: Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Somalia, Niger... hey if you want to limit yourself to oil bearing nations: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Iran (all of which have dubious human rights records, and not very quiet ones either). Heck, even Afghanistan was and still is in need of a lot of help... The job isn't finished there.
The point I'm trying to make is that Iraq was not such an opportune target (I'm not just talking about oil here either, Bush carried on for his father...) then it would have left to its own devices.
At what point does human suffering in one area demand more attention than in other areas?
I would have preferred to see Iraq in the position they were in... North of the rock, and south of the hardplace. They weren't going anywhere, and they were complying. By closing off their borders, they were hoodwinked into a position where they HAD to accept Saddam as their leader... Sanctions cemented his powerbase. If sanctions were stepped down, then the Iraqi people would have had an easier time of life, and have been able to overthrow a corrupt regime when they could have grasped a better life with their own hands.
The fact that the USA, Britan and several other countries (don't forget Spain) have taken initiative and overthrown a soverign government because it committed acts of atrocity (albeit invasion 14 years after the fact), and the fact that the country was under dictatorship (albeit cemented in by US proposed sanction, and 'encouraged' initially by the USA... ) is highly disquieting... The fact that one nation or group of nations is forcing their political beliefs onto one nation (no matter that the beliefs are not being forced onto other, more oppressed nations) goes to the point that this is not about right or wrong, it's not about relieving the suffering of people, and it's not about absurd notions of letting freedom ring from every hill, plane and valley; it's simply about money, and image.
Nothing more.
I dare say, there are better ways to free millions, and, there are more sage ways to develop people's confidence and trust in you. I'd say that the Iraqi people have gotten a lot very quickly out of this invasion, no question... however, the cost that has been paid and must be paid for at least 10 years or more in enough to have borne more consideration at the outset of the war.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
(Google it.)
