i can’t seem to escape from this capture-of-saddam-makes-us-safer meme. it’s everywhere. i hear it on the street, see it online and it appears in letters to the editor in newspapers i read (see the second letter down). the thing that drives me truly batty about it is not that i disagree with it (although i do) but that it is asserted without any supporting argument. it’s simply asserted as if it’s an obvious truth. here’s my argument that we are not safer:
bush claimed saddam hussein was dangerous to the american public because he had weapons of mass destruction that he could provide to terrorists. without WMDs, saddam is merely a two-bit tyrant presiding over a decrepit sanction-starved economy. so, let’s assume that bush is right, if saddam had WMDs, he would be a danger to the u.s. i have no idea whether hussein actually did have WMDs before the u.s.’s invasion. but since the war no WMDs have been found, so it follows that one of the following is true:
possibility #1
1. saddam hussein posed a danger to the u.s. if he had WMDs because he could provide them to terrorists
2. saddam hussein had WMDs in iraq when the u.s. invaded
3. the u.s. now controls iraq
4. the u.s cannot find the WMDs
5. the WMDs are no longer in iraq or are so well hidden that they are not under the control of the u.s.
6. WMDs either are in the hands of terrorists now or are in the hands of some unknown entity who could provide them to terrorists
thus under possibility #1 we are at least as much, if not more danger than we were prior to the iraq war. given the looting that occurred in iraq last may, there is a strong possibility that by invading iraq, we actually facilitated the transfer of WMDs from the baathist regime to an anti-u.s. terrorist group.
possibility #2
1. saddam hussein posed a danger to the u.s. if he had WMDs.
2. saddam hussein did not have WMDs in iraq when the u.s. invaded
3. saddam hussein did not post a danger to the u.s.
thus under possibility #2 we are no safer now than we were prior to the war in iraq. after all, without WMDs, saddam really could not do much to harm the u.s. its military, secret service, etc. were all severely underfunded and far outclassed by america’s military might.(as the invasion of iraq clearly demonstrated)
in either case, the removal of saddam did not make us safer today than we were prior to the iraqi invasion. and, in fact, there is a possibility that we may be less safe as a result of the invasion. if you want to argue otherwise, be my guest. let’s see what you got.
