QUESTIONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
|Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction or was the threat
of such weapons invented by some unknown
source in the American intelligence network? Corollary
questions include: If the intelligence was indeed
distorted, who were the players in the deception? Was it an intentional
hoax or was it the result of negligence? If the reports were correct, where are the weapons now?
These questions have become matters of great concern with President Bush establishing a bi-partisan commission to investigate the topic (again).
At issue is the very practical question of the nature of present American involvement in Iraq. Also at issue is whether the invasion is to be deemed appropriate and principled or not.
The justification for invasion of
Iraq, provided by the Bush administration, was the reputed stockpiles of WMD and WMD
programmes in that country, especially a nuclear
programme on the threshold of completion. The continued
failure to find any evidence of these weapons, now challenges this justification
-- at least that is the way the issue is often presented.
ask, though, are these the only valid types of
justifications for invasion? For many Jews, especially in
the post-Holocaust era, limiting the possible valid
justifications so narrowly is a matter of concern. There
is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who
terrorized the people he ruthlessly "governed".
Would this in itself not have been enough of a
justification for American intervention?
the problem is less to do with WMD, and more about
finding the true reason for the war and whether this
reason was justifiable.
end, what is important is that a nation confront these
questions. Only thus can a nation come to terms with its
values, its priorities, the decisions of its elected
leaders, and what kind of character they wish their
nation to have.