David Kay's recent report to the Senate supports, not undermines, the war in Iraq.

Jan. 30, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
* Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040130-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

David Kay's recent report to the Senate supports, not undermines, the war in Iraq.·

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week, David Kay said "we" (i.e., to honorably and objectively include himself among our intelligence experts, military experts and civilian leaders) reached, and adhered to, erroneous conclusions beginning in the mid-to-late 1990's in believing (a) that Saddam Hussein had maintained the large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons he was previously known to have possessed, (b) that Saddam Hussein was in the process of "reconstituting" his nuclear-weapons program, which we had discovered in the mid-1990's to have been far more advanced than we had believed when we launched Desert Storm in 1991, (c) that Saddam Hussein and his top leadership had a true understanding of, and effective control over, what his WMD scientists were actually doing, and (d) that Saddam's police state was so effective that fanatic Islamic terrorists could not effectively operate in Iraq without his acquiescence.

Kay also stated we were right that during the time frame from the ouster of inspectors in 1998 and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein and his weapons experts (1) had been working on means to use the nerve agent Reisen, (2) had been developing missiles with ranges substantially exceeding the limits set by UN resolutions, (3) had made arrangements to covertly acquire North Korean missiles with ranges and payloads much greater than prohibited-range missiles being maintained and produced by Iraq, (4) had maintained the plans, infrastructure and materials to enable Iraq to rapidly recommence mass-production of chemical and biological weapons and restart a nuclear-weapons program as soon as sanctions were to have ended, which Saddam expected to occur as a result of international pressure after a period of ineffectual "inspections."

Kay also stated (5) that numerous Iraqi weapons scientists interrogated since the toppling of Saddam Hussein had revealed aspects of Iraq's weapons-development plans and progress that they would not have disclosed to the UN inspection team while Saddam was in power because they, and/or their family members, would be killed or tortured, and that, therefore, continuation of the inspection process would not have lead to exposure of such activities. Most important, Kay explicitly said (6) that if our intelligence were to have been accurate, it would have revealed a more compelling, not less compelling, reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Predictably, critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom have focuses exclusively on (a) and (b) (to which I refer hereafter as the "overstated dangers") while ignoring Kay's testimony on (c), (d),(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) (to which I refer collectively hereafter as the "underestimated dangers"). Understandably, and, in my opinion correctly, supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom will focus on the underestimated dangers but without ignoring the overstated dangers. The collective impact of objective analysis of all those factors overwhelmingly establishes that although we were in error on how Saddam Hussein posed a serious "gathering danger," we had in fact underestimated the potential directness of the gathering danger posed by allowing Saddam to remain in power.

Rangers who reached the top of Pointe du Hoc overlooking Omaha Beach after sustaining many casualties from withering German fire as the Rangers scaled the cliff discovered that Allied intelligence had overstated the dangers on that bluff. German placements had duped Allied intelligence into believing huge guns were positioned on the bluff to slaughter Allied soldiers landing on Omaha beach. After reaching the top and discovering the huge guns were not there, the Rangers found and disabled a set of large, mobile guns, which the Germans had placed elsewhere for use in different tactical deployments. Thus, the Rangers' mission (at the cost of the lives of many Rangers) saved many lives but not the particular lives they expected the mission to save. The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but the principle is the same-- i.e., based on what we now know, it's even clearer that launching Operation Iraqi Freedom was the right decision. Solving the problem of intelligence that overstated some dangers while understating others should comprise a bipartisan effort rather than grounds for a political food-fight.

Many, if not most, of the critics who will complain most loudly about the overstated dangers are among those who supported, or demanded, severe qualitative restrictions and quantitative limitations on our intelligence-gathering capabilities. That process commenced with "reforms" implemented in 1970's the wake of hearings by the Senate committee headed by then-Senator Frank Church. (Such reforms including mandates for "stove-pipe" separation of domestic investigative assets such as the FBI and foreign intelligence operations, which was one of the factors leading to our domestic "right hand" and foreign "left hand" not effectively collaborating in a way that might have led to prevention of 9-11.) The process of eviscerating our ability to gather and analyze intelligence accelerated as a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. Politically popular, but naive, limitations in the 1990's (such as prohibitions against the CIA using the services of foreign operatives with criminal backgrounds) further exacerbated the problem. Will the current critics of our intelligence failures who supported those "reforms" accept personal responsibility for the deficiencies in our intelligence gathering capabilities flowing directly from such "reforms"? Of course they won't.

Ironically, among the most eloquent pre-war reasons asserted by Tony Blair in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom was the danger of mass-destruction weapons and/or know-how in a rogue state such as Iraq falling into the hands of fanatical Islamic terrorists. The chaos and corruption Kay has found to have existed in Iraq in the time period preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom show that we were already facing the risks of fanatical Islamic terrorists (some of which were already operating in northern Iraq) procuring WMD materials, technology or assistance from Iraqi weapons scientists by bribery or extortion with, or without, Saddam's acquiescence or knowledge. In that sense, we now know after the fact that Iraq was already at risk of becoming a lawless state akin to Afghanistan. Will the critics who contend we have not done enough to fund employment for former Soviet weapons experts to reduce the risks of their selling their knowledge and expertise to terrorists now contend that rogue scientists in Iraq did not pose a similar threat with respect to expertise on chemical and biological weapons (even if we were to ignore expertise they surely also possess with respect to creating "dirty" bombs using conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material).

Law Enforcement Versus Warfare.·

Finally, given what we know about the twin dangers of sociopathic police states such as Saddam Hussein's regime and religious fanaticism such as al Qaeda, Ansar Al-Islam, Islamic Jihad, Hammas, and Hezbolla, why would we want to wait until a threat becomes "imminent" to attempt to eliminate it rather than countering it at relatively lower risks and costs when it "merely" constitutes a "gathering danger"? The different political perspectives on the "gathering-dangers/imminent-threat" debate reflect different perceptions of whether dealing with the sociopathically dangerous Saddam Hussein ( who tried to assassinate Bush 41 and whose forces were continually trying to kill our pilots patrolling the no-fly zone in violation of a truce that merely suspended the state of war between us) and with the fanatical Islamic terrorists is a "law enforcement" mission or a warfare mission. I think it's the latter.

Donate your frequent-flier miles to military personnel to return home from port of reentry on leave: www.HeroMiles.Org.

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First: Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ·· MilBlogs ·

Home · Posts: Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs: Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives: Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates ·

News Sources/Papers/Magazines Pundits Blogs ThinkTanks What is "property"? Pantheopians Global Climate Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions Science GlobalWeb