Today's signing of the Iraqi constitution has me pondering weird things (for me)....
This is not a question of whether or not this nation was led into war at the end of a thick rope of lies, exaggerations and innuendo - we all know that to be true.
But...
Put yourself in the neo-con's position for a moment. Our country has been healing from a vicious gash dealt by the hand of Muslim/Mid-East extremism. For over 20 years, our nation has been the target of terror, but this time is like no other. You, as leaders of an injured nation, know you have to try something new; the results of the old are just too painful.
The first thing you do is ask yourself: "Who is the enemy?" The answer is easy: those that would destroy America and have acted (or would act, given the opportunity) upon their ambitions. Narrowly, the answer is: Al Queda (9/11), Hezbollah/Hamas (Beirut), Ansar al Islam, and other radical Muslim fundamentalist groups. More widely, the answer is: any entity, government, organization or individual that would offer support to such organizations.
Your second question: "What do I do to defeat this enemy?" This answer is more complicated. Multi-tiered and unique per situation, you know that the action(s) you decide upon are the most important measure of your legacy.
The old way of fighting terror, a method that was wilting under budget cuts and indifference for decades, involved mostly covert and surgical strikes through proxies like Mossad. Every now and then we'd launch a retaliatory Tomahawk. And we can be sure that plenty was done that we'll never know about. But the last thing you could call what we were doing is "War On Terror".
As the person responsible for making these decisions, you know in your gut that a War On Terror is exactly what is called for. You put the world on notice: those that would terrorize or support terror will face the wrath of a very hurt, very angry and very powerful nation.
Having set an agenda, the next task is to manage it. You see some success - the Taliban routed, certain Al Queda chiefs captured or killed and you enjoy a certain amount of cooperation from a sympathetic international community.
But a question nags you... Are you doing enough? Dismantling a significant portion of a single terrorist organization in a backwater third-world country counts for something, but... are you doing everything you can?
The answer nags you: you are not doing everything possible to wage this war on terror. The mindset that spawns terror runs prevalent throughout the Middle East. Fundamental change is called for.
A significant wing of your advisors has been advocating for war against Iraq for years. Of course, their reasons used to be quite different - stability in the oil producing Mid-East and control of key territory between Iran and Saudi Arabia (proximal to Israel) - but now their case has taken on a new flavor.
What if toppling Saddam (a brutal leader in the middle of the Mid-East cauldron - a leader that had supported surviving members of terrorists families, even after 9/11 - and most of all, a symbol, a cult hero, for so many that hate America) and installing a modern democracy really could catalyze a reformation in that area of the world?
It would be easy to do. Iraq's air force is non-existent. Sanctions have crippled his ability to wage war. His nation is divided - Kurds and Shiites would most likely welcome the deposing of Saddam and his supporting Sunni thugs. And, of course, there are other benefits. All the old ones are still there (oil, geo-political realities, Israel support), plus, if you can time this around the mid-term elections, you can probably lock up the House and get the Senate back.
Having snickered at all of the fringe benefits, as far as you are concerned, the fact remains that the War on Terror calls for a fundamental shift in the methods we use to prosecute it. You decide that war on Iraq truly is an extension of our war on terror. Creating a democracy in that region of the world is the fundamental shift called for. Even if it doesn't work, you've sent a message to those that would disrespect and incite violence against the United States. Your decision: go ahead with the war.
Now you've got to sell it the best you can. For this, you just turn it over to your political people and let them do what they are pros at doing. If they need you to exaggerate a little, even if they need you to lie - well, you do what you have to do. This is just too important. In the end, when Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy and freedom smack dab in the middle of all that tumult, the world will be a changed place and Americans will be safer. Saudi Arabia has made history by allowing free and open elections for some posts... Iran is showing signs of a nascent revolution... Maybe a democratic Iraq can cultivate a democratic Iran... And from there, who knows?
So my question to you all: Supposing all of the prognostications made above pan out in time. Would you consider it justified, albeit in a Machiavellian manner, for Bush, Cheney, Rove & Co. to obfuscate, lie and deceive in order to generate support for the war? Can it ever be possible that good ends would justify nefarious means?