I have to say I have been enjoying and learning from this campaign in many ways – not least from you, the readers, and from the twists and turns we have seen and will keep seeing. But now and again, it’s worth looking at the big picture. The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq. Was it worth starting? Has it been conducted well? Will it make us safer? My answers to those three questions are, briefly, yes, no, and, it depends. But from a broader perspective, the following facts are simply indisputable. The fundamental rationale for the war – the threat from Saddam’s existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn’t anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.
A SIMPLE QUESTION: Returning to Bremer. One of his early complaints was insufficient troop numbers to stop looting, restore order and protect unguarded weapon sites. Leave everything aside and focus on the latter. The war was launched because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The main fear was that these weapons might be transferred to terrorists who could use them against us. And yet in the invasion, there was little or no effort to secure these sites! And there was no effort to seal the borders to prevent their being exported, or purloined by terrorists. Why? I’ve long pondered this, but Bremer’s gaffe brings it back into focus. Why would you launch a war that failed in its very planning to avoid the disaster that you went to war to prevent? I don’t understand. We were lucky in retrospect that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs. The way this war has been run, it would have actually increased the chances of such weapons getting to America via terrorists rather than reduced them. At least, that seems to me to be the logical inference. Am I somehow wrong? Why did the administration leave weapons sites unguarded for so long? Why did they not send enough troops to secure the borders? I’m still baffled. And rattled. Can anyone explain?
YOUR TURN: Don’t miss a bumper edition of the Letters Page, tearing me a new one on the Edwards-Cheney debate.
The Dish 