The "Threat" of WMD's in Iraq

George Bush's Claim
Before the United States invaded Iraq, George Bush argued that a war in Iraq would be legitimate because Iraq was a threat to the United States. He argued that Iraq was a threat largely because of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD's)he alleged Iraq had. The logic was, if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, than Iraq is a threat to the United States interests. Iraq is hostile to the United States and will use it's weapons if given the opportunity. Therefore, the United States should launch a preventive strike in order to destroy Iraq's WMD's before Iraq has a chance to use them. There is debate over whether or not a preventive war is a just war, but President Bush argues that it is

The Opposition's Claim
The opposition's claim is not that there were no WMD's in Iraq, a generally accepted fact, but that president Bush mislead the American public by exaggerating the evidence for WMD's. They claim that President Bush knew that his intelligence was shaky but decided to ignore that. They also claim that he cherry picked the evidence which he wanted to share with the public so that they would be mislead into concluding that Iraq possessed and was pursuing more WMD's. There were also members of the opposition who argue that even if Iraq did have WMD's, a preemptive war would not have been a just war.

In this post, I will try to address the arguments made by both sides through logical analysis and a comparison with the known facts.

First of all, whether or not there was WMD's in Iraq is not an issue when judging George Bush's representation of the known facts. If he was was honest and fair when presenting the issue to the public, then he was only making an legitimate mistake. If he was biased and deceptive, then what he did was wrong, even if there where WMD's in Iraq.
The issues are, did George Bush misrepresent the information available to him? and Is a preemptive war a just war?

George Bush's Representation of the Intelligence.
,While there are too many documents and quotes to discuss each one thoroughly in this post. My conclusion after reading many of them is that President Bush was not alone when he concluded that Iraq had WMD's. For example, Hillary Clinton told the Senate on October 10, 2002 quote "in the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."

Georges Sada, a former Iraqi Airforce General told Fox News that (quote link), " we had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our people"

In 2003, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission

While there were intelligence reports that did conclude that Iraq had, or likely had, WMD's, there were also reports which states that Iraq do not have these weapons. When George Bush told the United States that Iraq did have WMD's, I believe that he was choosing to believe one set of reports and disregard the latter. I believe that this was misleading of him. It is very possible that he truly believed that Iraq had WMD's, yet he discussed the issue as if there was no debate.

Personally, I do not feel that this was morally wrong of him. I place the real blame on the agencies which incorrectly concluded that Iraq possessed WMD's. However, I do feel that Bush acted foolishly and carelessly in regards to his representation of the intelligence available to him. concluded that Iraq had the potential to develop thousands of biological weapons, and possessed the weapons capable of delivering them.

The Legitimacy of a Preemptive War.
There are several commonly accepted Criteria for a Just War .
--The war is a last resort
--The war is waged by a legitimate authority.
--The war redresses a wrong suffered
--The extent of the war must be proportional to the wrong suffered
--The must have minimal collateral damage
--The purpose of the war is to bring about future, long lasting peace.

A preemptive war cannot meet any of these requirements except for that last one. Yet some theorists argue that in a post 9/11, these criteria must be reevaluated. They argue that a terrorist needs to only attack once in order to "win" and that unlike a sovereign nation, it is difficult to effectively retaliate against a terrorist strike (especially ones of a suicide nature).

It can also be argued that a preemptive war might be more successful than a war that is a response to an attack. Therefore, it is a way of preventing injustice and avoidable casualties.

I think that these are logical arguments, however, the danger is that it is impossible to predict the future and know whether a preemptive strike is really preemptive (it can only be called so if the enemy is really going to attack you). It is almost impossible to call a preemptive war a last resort. Therefore, I argue that the more certain a nation is that it is going to be attacked the more legitimate a preemptive strike is. In this case of Iraq, I do not think there was enough evidence to support that idea that Iraq was preparing to attack the U.S. or it's allies. Therefore, I do not feel that the preemptive war with Iraq can be legitimized as such (though the war may be legitimate for other reasons, such as human rights violations).