Originally posted by SDW2001
The President of United States considers Saddam's Iraq a threat to US national security. If you don't believe that, any and all further arguments are moot, because one assumes you believe that he has some ulterior, super-secret sinister plan up his sleeve.
The driving motives are not secret. Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, etc. have been publishing papers on it for decades now. In fact, every paper coming out of hawk think-tanks has advocated it. It's also widely reported and, in case you haven't noticed, every print interview with every one of these men for the past 6 months has focused on the need to control Iraq for a) increased global influence and b) transform the middle east for Israel's sake. Go dig up the past couple of months of New Yorkers, New York Times and Atlantics to read these interviews. The whole disarming issue is hardly raised. Why not? Because most informed people realize it's BS. For example, out of 60 faculty here at Northwestern asked to speak at a 'teach-in,' only one, yes one, said she found the admin's arguments compelling enough not to speak. Every single other faculty member wanted to speak out against the policy and the war, and as many as there was time for did. Northwestern is an extremely conservative school, so you can't say they are just a bunch of liberals.
In the scholarly world right now it is a given that Saddam poses no threat. In fact, most scholars point out that it is specifically the weakness of Iraq under Saddam that makes this war possible.
What is also a given is the contents of the study group papers and strategic roadmaps put out by current admin officials for the past few decades. It started in the 70s with what was know as the 'Kissinger Plan' and has grown in strength ever since. Everything that is happening now has been in the works for a long time, and Iraq is just one stage. The basic idea is that control of the middle east will ensure US dominance for the next 50-100 years. The real discussion, therefore, is whether this is a realistic plan, which the vast majority of americans, scholars and even republicans do not think it is. If you want to discuss the actual issues, and not some myopic acceptance of war propaganda, forget about WMD (which anyone with any anount of self-respect and education does--hence the content of the above-cited interviews) and discuss the actual expressed US Strategic Strategy as articulated by the members of the current admin for the past 25 or so years.
If you still ignore the actual policies as articulated time and time again by the Administration for the past 25 years and think that this war is to stop WMD from reaching the hands of terrorists, you are conveniently ignoring pakistan, 9/11's state sponsor and current nuclear power. Some of Pakistan's top officials, including the head of the ISI (who wired $100,000 to Atta), have had to resign, though those were just tokens. Al-Qaeda is
part of the ISI. How much more of a connection do you need? Pakistan poses, by many degrees of magnitude, a much greater threat of terrorism (and nuclear at that) than Iraq ever will. Not to mention that Pakistan is the main supplier of nuclear tech to NOKOR. Perhaps the Admin is 'keeping it's friends close and enemies closer,' but the pseudo-hawks in the public apparently have not realized that while all of the accusations thrown at Iraq are shaky at extreme best, they fit pakistan like a glove.