Just an interesting article to throw to the wolves Stuart Barnett: So, exactly why did we kick out Saddam? PROBABLY the best way to understand the Bush administration's arguments in favour of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq last year, the timing, and the defiance of the UN is in the context of revelations made by former Bush treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill - that plans to oust Saddam Hussein preceded any war on terrorism. Speaking to 60 Minutes in the US, O'Neill said: "From the very beginning there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go." The meetings and discussions were "all about finding a way to do it". There was never one clear argument for a war in Iraq but, rather, a collection of arguments that, when stacked up, provided plausible reasons for invasion. The overriding issue, however, was fighting terrorism. Now many of those arguments appear completely false, or at least seriously lacking credibility. The absence of weapons of mass destruction speaks for itself. A recent investigative report in The Washington Post based on Iraqi documents as well as interviews with key Iraqis and members of the US weapons inspection team, found that Iraq's effort to produce weapons of terror had been severely reduced by sanctions and arms embargoes, and that any forbidden weapons program had little basis in fact. And now even US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted there is no "concrete evidence about the connection" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida. Not quite a backflip from his assertions to the UN before the war, but certainly a concession of what many experts believed: namely that evidence of links between Hussein and al-Qa'ida was very difficult to produce. At the time, Powell told the UN that a "sinister nexus" existed "between Iraq and the al-Qa'ida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organisations and modern methods of murder". The only argument that seems to stack up post-war is the humanitarian grounds: the liberation of an oppressed people – an argument advanced by the Bush administration, but fraught with difficulties. The humanitarian argument does not, however, explain the timing of the war or the need for speed, given 12 years broad Western support for sanctions. The removal of Hussein is certainly something to rejoice about, but it shouldn't obfuscate issues surrounding pre-emptive strikes and misleading arguments for war. In Australia, John Howard mentioned the humanitarian argument but only in passing and the word "liberation" wasn't trotted out until after the war, when the troops were welcomed home. Maybe Howard's concern for the people of Iraq can be best seen in his Government's treatment of Iraqi refugees fleeing to our shores. Now all arguments for the war are forgotten and everything is reduced to the simplified contention that failure to support the war is a vote for Hussein. And finally, 10 months too late, Mark Latham has provided Labor with a clear voice on the war: it was "a mistake". Indicative of the present state of the debate over Iraq in Australia is Acting Prime Minster John Anderson's reply to the Opposition Leader: "Mr Latham obviously believes Saddam Hussein's brutal regime should still be in place." On that logic both Howard and Anderson supported the former Iraqi dictator and his brutality by not advocating war for regime change earlier. Latham's comments about the absence of WMD and the failure of the Government's justification for the war have been reported as reigniting the Iraq debate. Hardly. It may be difficult to understand why, but Australians have generally moved on – much to Howard's delight. This enables the Howard Government to simplify arguments about the war into the issue of supporting or opposing the nefarious dictator. It may have been different had the military campaign been prolonged or if Australian troops had been arriving home in body bags. But as it is, Hussein is gone, Australia's commitment in Iraq is substantially limited and many like the idea of Howard endearing Australia to the US. But this, too, is a simplistic notion, given that Howard's support is geared to a particular US administration; should a Democrat be elected later this year, things could become very different. And it is surprising the number of times commentators in the US, when discussing international support for the war, ignore our role – Britain and Spain get mentioned, but not Australia. As for the free trade agreement with the US, its benefits will only become clear after the fine print is settled. Does any of this make any difference? What matters is what the future holds for the people of Iraq. The means justified the end. But if that's the case, if it was all about removing Hussein for the benefit of the people of Iraq, it would have been nice if that case was properly made, to the exclusion of all this nonsense about WMD and the like. Stuart Barnett is a Brisbane-based writer. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8383056%5E7583,00.html
