Connect the dots

I know I've mentioned it before, but the difficulty Obeidi had getting the plans and other information he had buried in his yard to us is just another thing that makes it seem like the Bush administration really isn't trying all that hard to find the WMD's - though I still haven't figured out entirely why. The list of things they're ignoring, difficulties people who want to give them information are having and the general lack of concern they seem to have about the whole issue is getting to a point where its hard to dismiss it as mere incompetence or coincidence.

Jeanne D'Arc at Body and Soul commented today on another odd development in the War on Terror™. Apparently, we are trying to set up our own "Peacekeeping" forces that would be an alternative to the UN peacekeepers, and we're also trying to block the UN from sending peacekeepers to the Congo and Liberia to help out with the situation there.

As I was reading the article, a recent move the administration made suddenly seemed to make more sense. Why are we standing in the way of sending a UN force large enough to actually accomplish something to the Congo? Lots of people have asked why we aren't sending troops, but the barrier we're setting up goes a lot farther than that -- we're stopping other countries from beefing up the UN force. Why?

I don't have a well-thought out answer, but I do have a concern tugging at me: If we plan to set ourselves up as the world's "peacekeepers," do we really have any interest in helping the UN succeed in its current attempt at peacekeeping?

This administration seems to be playing a lot of games. It makes no logical sense that they wouldn't want to find WMD, unless there's something to be gained from it, nor does it make any logical sense to block other nations from joining the UN peacekeeping forces, especially in a situation that in as dire need of resolving as the ones in the Congo and Liberia.

So what are we to make of all this? Prior to the start of the war, the administration repeatedly cited the imminent threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the US because of the biological and chemical weapons he had, and the nuclear weapons he was rebuilding. Now, we hear Colin Powell on NPR saying that

Our concern was that Iraq was keeping in place this capability, waiting for the day when they were free of sanctions and could go about putting all of their programs back in place. This particularly applies to the nuclear program. What I said in February when I spoke to the UN, was that they had the brainpower, they had the plans, and they were working on acquiring the capability, and whenever they were free of UN constraints or other constraints -- nobody was breathing down their neck -- there was no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein still had the intention of developing such a capability.

So, he wasn't an imminent threat, but a potential threat, and yet it was more important to use our military to take him out and to focus our energies on preventing him from being able to restart his programs in the future than it was for us to try and deal with the North Koreans who already have restarted their nuclear weapons program.

And while many in the pro-war crowd have claimed that ridding Iraq of a cruel dictator justifies the war, even if no weapons are ever found, we're trying to prevent other countries from being able to provide humanitarian military aid to people in Liberia and the Congo who are facing situations every bit as grim as anything the Iraqis had faced under Saddam.

Right now, I have a lot of questions, but few answers.

• Why do we seem to be going out of our way to avoid finding our anything about Saddam's weapons program?


• Why are we making it so hard for someone who had information to give it to us?


• Why are we now backtracking from claiming that Saddam had WMD's to saying he wanted to restart his WMD programs when and if sanctions were lifted?


• If it was the potential threat Saddam posed that was the issue, then why was he considered more of a threat than the North Koreans?


• Why are the Iraqi people more in need of relief from an oppressive ruler than those in the Congo or Liberia? and Why don't we want other countries to join the UN peacekeeping forces?

I just really don't get it. My instincts are telling me there's something here - that all of this is somehow related. I could, of course, be totally off base. I honestly don't know. What I do know, though, is that I would love to hear any information, thoughts, suggestions or even questions you might have on if, or how, these dots connect, and what the big picture is that we'll see when its all done.

Posted by thorswitch at June 29, 2003 02:06 PM | TrackBack