Max's Mewsings

I suppose the reality is that we will never know for certain if political considerations resulted in massaging of intelligence or if the information leaders had was truly as poor as is being suggested. All of which leaves me unsatisfied.

I am prepared to believe the decision attack Saddam was made in good faith based on the best information available and I don't believe the invasion of Iraq was inherently wrong (nobody will convince me Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein). The ends, however, do not justify the means. The fuzziness over the motivation for the war brings into question the criteria for the use of force.

Before September 11, it was fairly clear - a nation could legitimately use force only if it was attacked first. The Bush Doctrine, developed as a result of the terror attacks, suggests a nation is justified in conducting preemptive strikes if there is a threat.

This is where things get hazy. It is pretty clear when a country has been attacked, but threats are less clear and can often only be discovered through intelligence activities. How solid does that intelligence have to be? How much of it has to be made public? Is it enough to have a coalition of respected countries endorse the action, or should the United Nation have a role?

I find myself able to argue both sides of these questions but unable to convince myself that either side is right. What does seem clear to me is the Iraq war was an error for Messrs. Bush and Blair, not necessarily because it was the wrong thing to do, but because it has brought the Bush Doctrine into disrepute to the point where it may never be applied again.