Printer friendly version

March 22, 2004

Then Where'd It Come From?

Craig Henry has taken a look at his pre-war assessment of the argument for war, and he writes something that strikes a chord with me:

The case for war did not argue that Saddam's WMDs were an "imminent threat" or that he was involved in the 9-11 attacks. Instead, it argued that he was trying to get WMDs, that containment/sanctions/deterrence were beset with problems of their own, and that waiting was worse than acting. Nothing i've read in the past year refutes that assessment.

I don't think I ever got around to writing a similar post, so my arguments and proof of what I thought the arguments to be are scattered over months of posts here and comments elsewhere. However, I remember people arguing against the war by saying that the threat wasn't imminent, and I remember responding that the central argument for war at that time was that we could never know when it was imminent. In fact, as I recall, a paleocon commenter on Mark Shea's blog tried to phrase the argument in terms of stockpiles, and I replied that, although that would certainly make the war even more immediately necessary, it wasn't what made it necessary to begin with.

I'm aware that some will just hold a mirror up to this comment to reflect it back to me. However, I have to say that it's one thing to read long-ago history revised, but another thing altogether to live through the metamorphosis. It's not this issue alone that frustrates credulity thus.

Posted by Justin Katz at March 22, 2004 8:29 PM
Middle East