One year after coalition forces invaded Iraq, the dust is far from settling. A swift and impressive military victory has yielded some spoils, but they’re overshadowed by uncertainty.
The justification for forcing Saddam Hussein from power — that he possessed weapons of mass destruction and was thus an immediate threat to the world — will be debated at length in the presidential campaign. Few disagree that the world is better off without Saddam. Plus, a powerful message has been sent to other would-be supporters of terrorism, and a serious effort to sow the seeds of democracy in the heart of the Arab world has begun.
But the United States has paid a price in blood, treasure and credibility. The final cost is anyone’s guess, and the recent escalation of attacks on civilian targets indicates that stability remains elusive. Evidence that the Bush administration overstated the threat posed by Saddam — at least by buying into intelligence that supported an invasion strategy and disregarding caveats about its accuracy — threatens to undermine U.S. credibility for years to come.
For now, though, the United States has no choice but to continue the difficult and delicate work of rebuilding Iraq — physically and politically. Progress is slow but evident, capped by the recent agreement on an interim constitution.
Efforts to undermine that progress figure to increase as the June 30 deadline for handing over power to Iraqis approaches, and it’s far from clear when free and fair elections can be held. The recent attacks indicate that Iraq has become a primary stage for the war on terror, a war the United States must continue to lead. That means staying in Iraq until stability is achieved.
As the focus sharpens on states that support terrorism, an important lesson from the Iraq experience must be remembered: on-the-ground weapons inspections generally yield more reliable information than distant intelligence, and are more objective. The Bush administration’s certainty about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was founded on faulty intelligence, and in hindsight it’s clear that weapons inspections should have continued, as many key allies argued.
Pre-emptive action must be based on more than suspicion. The American people, most of whom gave their government the benefit of the doubt in this case, will demand it next time.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
