Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
Arrogance of Rumsfeld
COMMENT
DONALD Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has said that Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the coalition forces went to war on Saddam Hussein.
If Mr Rumsfeld is right, this would of course explain why the allies have so far signally failed to find any significant evidence of the existence of these weapons since Saddam’s regime was toppled six weeks ago.
But far from resolving the issue, his comments raise some serious concerns about what the US and British governments said before the war.
The people who backed the conflict - including this newspaper - did so because both the British and American Governments produced intelligence which they said proved Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and that there was evidence that Saddam was seeking to build nuclear weapons.
When the UN Security Council failed to back Britain and US with another resolution, the allies could still fall back on previous resolutions which called for Iraq to disarm following the Gulf War.
While Iraq had been reluctantly co-operating with UN weapons inspectors, they were not given the time they wanted to satisfy themselves that Saddam was not harbouring weapons of mass destruction.
So Britain and America and others went to war, and dozens of their troops were killed and injured.
After Donald Rumsfeld’s comments those who backed the crusade against Saddam might be feeling like they have been used.
It is not even the fact that he said it that is so shocking, but the dismissive way in which he said it.
This was an off-the-cuff remark made during a speech focused on warning Iran against meddling in the rebuilding of Iraq.
This was no embarrassed gaffe or embattled admission. It was as if it did not matter.
And it reveals an arrogance which can only be damaging to the British and American cause, and their efforts to rebuild Iraq at a time when political sensitivities in the Middle East cannot be underestimated.
The British Government must also tread carefully here, amid the speculation that Tony Blair is considering a visit to Basra after flying to Kuwait to thank its people for their help during the conflict.
Visiting Kuwait is fair enough, but Mr Blair should not consider extending his trip to Iraq.
The Prime Minister justified the war not only because of the threat posed by Saddam’s harbouring of weapons of mass destruction, but because it would free the people of Iraq from a tyrannical regime.
He painted it not as an invasion, but a liberation.
If the rebuilding of Iraq is now his priority, then Mr Blair must resist the temptation to parade the streets of Basra like a conquering hero.