Top Myths about the Iraq War

I'm tired of politicians who substitute shallow criticisms in lieu of substantive arguments. As the next election approaches just count the number of times that candidates quote economic data in nominal figures to make comparisons that only matter in real terms. It's a popular trick and it warrants exposure, the most recent set of criticisms circulating about the Iraq war. I'm not suggesting there isn't a world view that reasonably opposes the war, I'm simply stating that most war critics are not making those arguments. Here are the false arguments you will hear them make:

1. "There were no weapons of mass destruction!" This is a favorite among war critics. However, it is entirely irrelevent to the pre-war analysis; it only matters that the threat of WMD was credible. It's easy for a political naysayer to wield this soundbite deceptively at the general public. However, it plays no material role in the decision to act militarily against a genuinely perceived threat. What matters is that, prior to the war, you could count on one hand the number of people who believed Saddam did not possess WMD--even among those who favored alternatives to war.

Consider a simple analogy. If a violent criminal pulls a gun on a cop pursuing him from the scene of a crime, and the cop shoots the man perceiving an imminent threat to his life, would you try the cop for murder because you later discovered that the gun was in fact a toy replica? The cop acted on a genuinely perceived, mortal threat.

The naysayers would love to suggest today that the threat wasn't real. Unfortunately for them, that's not what they said when it mattered. Nearly everyone believed Saddam had WMD, including intelligence agencies around the world. Saddam even behaved as if he had WMD because it was the threat of WMD that endowed him with power.

2. "UN inspectors would have proved Saddam did not possess WMD." This fallacy was articulately acknowledged by a war opponent in the Journal of Foreign Policy months prior to the war. This was a false hope because proving the absence of WMD was an impossible standard. Why? Because to say with certainty that Saddam did not have WMD would require inspectors to search every square inch of Iraq--above ground and below--and to say with certainty when they had finished searching that nothing was moved during the course of the search. No amount of UN inspections could have determined that. The only way to know that there were no WMD in Iraq was to put 150,000 US servicemen on the ground--in control of the military, police, and governing body--to search every building, retrieve and sift through every government document and correspondance, and to capture and interview every former government official that may have had knowledge of such weapons. I find it incredibly ironic that the only means by which war critics now know there are no WMD in Iraq is the selfsame target of their criticisms.

3. "The war in Iraq was all about WMD." I never understand why people choose to see in black and white--to assume that every decision is made for one reason only. For some people it was impossible to believe that the first Gulf War could actually be motivated, at least in part, by a genuine need to oppose aggression on a frightening scale--the invasion of Kuwait. No. "It was all about the oil" they would say.

As if to accentuate their ignorance, critics cry out that "if WMD was such a threat in Iraq, then why don't we go to war with North Korea and Iran!" The simple and obvious answer is that Iraq was never about one issue. It was the accumulation of multiple issues, including our need to stand behind post war resolutions made in 1991; to signal to the chaotic and fascist regimes of the world our unwillingness to tolerate threats against the well-meaning and free societies of the world; our intolerance for genocidal treatment of entire populations; and to encourage the growth of a society that offers political and economic satisfaction in lieu of poverty and despair--which is the real catalyst behind the recruitment of terrorists. There is no other country in the World, Iran and North Korea included, that qualify on so many counts.

It's true that the Bush administration placed the greatest emphasis on one factor in particular--the threat of WMD. I believe they considered this a "trump card," one that nobody could refute. But the administration did repeat its justification on all counts, however disinterested the public was in the other reasons.

4. "Bush lied about pre-war intelligence." This is a favorite of mine, having worked at the National Security Agency for four years. There is an erroneous perception in the public that intelligence is black and white (see point #3). The fact is that intelligence is frequently vague. One political commentator aptly stated on "Hardball" once that, regarding pre-war intelligence, "everyone was cherrypicking from a pool of ambigous intelligence." There was evidence suggesting the existence of WMD in Iraq, and there was intelligence that was not evidence of WMD in Iraq. What there never was prior to the war was any intelligence that could disprove the existence of WMD. In a compartmented, dictatorial regime like Hussein's Iraq, the only source of intelligence that could even have known whether WMD existed was Hussein himself. And who would be foolish enough to take him at his word?

It is abundantly transparent that Bush truly believed he would find WMD in Iraq. Even those who (for political gain) accuse the President of lieing about intelligence stop short of suggesting that he did not believed Saddam possessed WMD. What critics also find convenient to ignore is the post 9/11 climate which exposed a colossal liability in interpreting intelligence on the benign side. Would the President's opponents, and the American people, have been any less critical of the President if a terrorist were to have released a biological agent inside the United States that he had obtained from Saddam Hussein? This was a very real dilemma for the United States at that time, and remains a dilemma today in a world where WMD continue to proliferate in the hands of dangerous and ill-meaning regimes. It is why the President of the United States, whoever he is, will always be criticized for decisions he makes, even when they are the right ones.

The Problem with Carter

So Jimmy Carter is at it again--pouting because his idealistic rants fall on deaf ears. This time he exhibited a serious lack of class by using the Coretta Scott King funeral as the platford for his diatribe, pretending that his uber-idealistic viewpoint of the world could ever solve real problems. Carter behaves like the naive but well meaning protagonist of a movie where the cunning villain repeatedly assures his good intentions, only to prove himself vile time and again. From the moment they meet the villain, the audience understands his devlish nature, but the poor protagonist gets burned again and again. Poor naive Jimmy.

One would think that Carter is too experienced to be so naive, or maybe it's just been too long since Carter was able to witness the real world consequences of his idealistic proposals. He reminds me of the Hans Blix puppet in "Team America World Police." When Kim Jong Il inquires what will happen if he does not comply with the UN's demands, Hans replies "We will be very angry...and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are!"

The President should "speak softly but carry a big stick." Such a President can reach out to law abiding nations while making clear to terrorist organisations and malfeasant dictators that the United States does not tolerate threats to the peaceful, democratic, well-meaning nations of the world.

I wouldn't say that George Bush is one to speak softly, but no one can question his convictions to fight terrorism and aggresion against the civilized world. Carter's problem is not that he carries a small stick--it's that he doesn't carry a stick at all. Our movie's villain will play Carter for a fool again and again. He is the epitome of the paper tiger.

It's not that people like Carter don't have a place in the world--they do. It's just that their place is far removed from the responsbilities of protecting the American people by opposing terrorism and promoting the development of free and democratic nations worldwide. It is ultimately only when the idle and disenfranchised people of the third world turn their attention towards the fulfillment of political and economic aspirations that they will cast terrorism aside and cease to threaten those around them. Tolerating repressive and dictatorial regimes only ensures their persistence. Let Carter promote literacy, medicine, and the environment worldwide. These are areas where people like Jimmy can have a positive influence. On the other hand, if the role of world leaders is to gather at the UN to hold hands and sing songs, then Carter is your man. That's the sort of world he dreams of; unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

Why Every American Should Care About Border Security

Ask anyone why the United States needs tighter border security and you will likely hear about preventing the infiltration of deviant individuals, halting the spread of harmful and illegal substances, and decreasing the burden on our social welfare systems. To others the need for improving border security may simply feel like the safe thing to do. The reason you seldom hear—and among the most compelling reasons of all—is the protection of civil rights for all Americans.

The tendency to view added security measures as impeding upon civil liberties is generally a valid one, although the pertinent question is not whether increased security requires us to surrender a measure of freedom, but whether such an infringement upon our privacy is desirable under certain circumstances to prevent a much greater violation of human rights—the perpetration of terrorist acts upon the population. While this view holds merit under most circumstances, it does not pertain to border security. A tight border around the United States will actually enhance the freedoms Americans cherish.

Intelligence Gathering
The most effective instrument in fighting terrorism is the collection and analysis of information, or “intelligence.” It is also the most desirable method from a civil liberties perspective. The alternative to the discovery and disruption of terrorism through the collection of information is by deploying brute strength to defend against every potential vulnerability. In other words, you would have to position a marine at every bus stop, subway station, building entrance, railway station, and hydroelectric dam across the country in the hopes of stopping a terrorist at the scene of the crime. By collecting information about known antagonists and monitoring their behavior, the United States has successfully prevented terrorism for decades while preserving the most free and open society in the world.

Recently, our ability to thwart terrorism through information gathering has been tested by increasingly technology savvy terrorists. Organized groups like Al Qaeda are communicating more effectively than ever, at the same time disguising their communications in ways that make preventing their activities difficult. To fight them, the United States must become more effective in its use of information gathering and sharing. Intelligence agencies must be permitted to disseminate pertinent intelligence to federal and local government agencies and law enforcement organizations that can act on the information. This principal was the overriding lesson learned by the 9/11 commission, which detailed countless missed opportunities by the U.S. Government to piece together the puzzle of information that would have prevented the dreadful events of that day.

It seems we face an inevitable dilemma—to enhance our defense against terrorism by expanding information-gathering capabilities (and surrendering a greater degree of anonymity), or to preserve the current level of privacy and tolerate greater risk that another catastrophic terrorist attack will occur on U.S. soil.

This question was posed to the American people in the aftermath of 9/11 and they responded with the Patriot Act—an attempt to increase domestic security by expanding the power of the government to collect intelligence. And while the Patriot Act has no doubt increased our ability to counter terrorism, it requires Americans to surrender a degree of freedom that is unpalatable to some.

There is an overlooked solution to the dilemma that preserves maximum freedoms for Americans while dramatically improving our national security. The answer lies in a border security policy that prevents the infiltration of terrorists rather than trying to locate them after they assimilate into society. The existing policy is embarrassingly, and dangerously inadequate.

The Membrane Model
The need for an effective border security policy can be understood by considering a membrane—the region around a cell that regulates the flow of substances into and out of the cell. Just as it is possible to prevent the entry of unwanted substances into a cell through a membrane—preserving the desirable state within the cell—it is also possible to prevent the infiltration of hostile individuals into the United States by hermetically sealing our borders, and maximizing the degree of privacy and overall civil liberties within. The more we allow these external threats to penetrate our borders, the more they proliferate inside the country’s boundaries, and the more aggressively the government must collect intelligence domestically to fight them.

A successful border security policy should incorporate the following three principles:

1. The United States must completely seal its physical borders. Even a small leak through the border renders the protective membrane ineffective. Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, our borders are only as effective as their weakest point. Individuals most committed to crime or terror will expose and exploit the vulnerability. It will not matter that 95% of the border is secure if the remaining 5% is ineffective.

2. U.S. Agencies must perfect the gathering and sharing of intelligence at the borders. This provision may cause the most concern among Americans who harbor no ill intent, and who wonder why they should be scrutinized and treated as potential threats. The answer is to protect their security and their freedom where it really matters—at home. Compromising one’s anonymity under a single circumstance—when crossing the border into the United States—is far more desirable than expanding the government’s reach into every aspect of our lives, and much safer than allowing known antagonists to enter the country undetected.

3. Legislators must pass sensible regulations on the treatment of foreigners inside the United States. It is amazing the extent to which U.S. law enforcement has been successful in thwarting terrorism to date, given the numerous provisions that effectively tie the arms of law enforcement officials behind their backs. Information that could likely have prevented the 9/11 attacks was withheld from law enforcement officials simply because a suspected Al Qaeda member was visiting the U.S. on a valid visa. Privacy laws, as they pertain to foreigners, should not undermine the use of credible intelligence in thwarting a terrorist attack.

If the Bush Administration and members of Congress would simply adopt and enforce these three principles, the ability of foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States and commit acts of violence would be seriously diminished. The tactical implementation of these principles is neither complex nor costly, when compared to the litany of competing issues on the Nation’s docket. There is simply no excuse for failing on this issue any longer.

The argument that sealing our borders undermines a humanitarian effort to aid foreign refugees, primarily from Mexico, confuses two discrete and unrelated issues. The United States’ immigration policies should be amended to accommodate the needs of foreign refugees, but not at the expense of security for all Americans, and not for the benefit of criminals and drug traffickers. In short, our humanitarian efforts should invite the poor and the needy to find refuge inside our borders, but only to those who come through the front door.

It has never been the practice of our government to anticipate and resolve problems before disaster strikes. Imagine trying to implement the sweeping reforms to the intelligence community and to law enforcement legislation prior to 9/11. In an environment with almost unlimited competition for resources and spending, the critical needs are too easily neglected.

Even the lessons of 9/11 are fading with time. It only took NASA 17 years for history to repeat itself with the loss of another shuttle crew, and for the organization that vowed a comprehensive systemic overhaul to find itself exactly where it had been in 1986—mired in a culture that failed to recognize disaster while it could still be prevented. Let’s hope that history does not repeat itself with respect to 9/11, but our government’s continuing ignorance on the critical issue of border security leaves me with little optimism.