I don't understand how this sheds light on the situation. Doesn't this show that munitions can be hard to find when no one knows anything about their placement?

Precisely. So hard to find that we cannot find our own.

See, I have a problem with the whole idea of forcing Saddam to account for all of his weapons. Not only did it give the UN unreasonable power over the defensive capabilities of a sovereign state (US conservatives are all about preserving state sovereignty against the UN, remember?), but it also compromised our worldwide deterrent. Our overall deterrent is based on this simple idea: "You don't invade anyone we care about, and we won't invade you." That is a very sound system, and it had been working for ten years against Iraq. But under this new system, we say, "You have to prove a negative, or we will invade you no matter how well you behave yourself." I think that this is a recipe for instability, because it gives people like Saddam nothing to lose.

In the case of the American weapons mentioned above, nobody hid them -- yet (a) they are totally useless to us, but (b) we cannot account for their destruction either.

I did not make this post in order to argue all of that, however. I originally made it simply to discredit the specific idea that a single chemical round provides evidence that war was a good idea.

But we can still talk about war reasons, can't we? As Bill said in that other post on Thinklings, you have oversimplified things. Clinton and the world had reason to believe Hussein had stockpiles of WMD-type weapons, and there are ways of disposing of those things--ways which leave a good bit of evidence. If he had destroyed them, he could have shown UN Inspectors the results.

But he didn't destroy them, and you're saying he may not have hid them either. He just mislaid them. That's a stretch, don't you think? With the story you site, the munitions were very old or thought to be disposed of (for better or for worse), but not put down for later use which is what Hussein would have done. If he mislaid anything, it would be because he was trying to hide it from us.

I'm not saying he did anything in particular with them. I don't know what he did with them. However, if they still exist, those weapons may be a bigger threat now because we don't know where they are. As long as Saddam had them, we could contain him using the usual methods.

If those weapons still exist and if they are still in Iraq and if any Iraqis know where they are, they pose a grave threat because now we have no idea who has them and we lose sovereignty next month and Iraq is now open to international radical elements. If the weapons are in Syria, they pose a similarly large threat for similar reasons. If they are already on the black market, then the invasion in Iraq has totally failed as a means of containing WMD.

If they are already on the black market, then the invasion in Iraq has totally failed as a means of containing WMD.

Time will certainly tell. This is a great point Jonathan - Saddam was given time to dispose of or hide the weapons as he saw fit - who knows what happened to them? I still, to this day, can't understand Saddam's actions, though. But I have been concerned for some time about these weapons showing up somewhere else and being used against us.

But if things go to heck in a handcart due to the invasion I'll be the first one to say I was wrong. I hold on to hope, however - the final tally on this war will be years to come. I hope that a free Iraq with some sort of decent relations with its neighbors and us emerges.

A question (pure curiosity - I'm not baiting you at all) - what, if anything, should we do regarding Islamo-fascism? I can't remember if you supported the Afghanistan or not.

I supported the US invasion of Afghanistan entirely. The United States endured a military attack at the hands of an organization that was not only headquartered in Afghanistan but was also practically running it; the Taliban was at the very least an ally of the power with which we were at war, unlike Iraq. Incidentally, I see the value of Desert Storm as well; I am all in favor of preserving an international balance of power, and the invasion of Kuwait threatened that. Hence, my position on this sort of thing is not a strictly isolationist position. Nevertheless, I think the United States has often shot itself in the foot by interfering inappropriately in the affairs of other nations.

America has one huge difficulty in foreign policy matters: the tension between security and freedom. Many times we have found ourselves in the unfortunate position of supporting a strongman in order to prevent radicals from gaining power. At one point, for instance, we supported Saddam because he was an enemy to our enemy, the virulent and actively terroristic regime in Iran. Before that, we propped up an extremely unpopular dictator within Iran, right up until his people threw him out (and turned on us in their anger). In the present day, the US supports the unpopular monarchy in Saudi Arabia, even though our support for this corrupt and abusive regime encourages terrorists like Bin Laden to attack us, and even though this regime has made Wahabbism something akin to a state religion. In another area of the world, we have been giving military aid to the dictator of Uzbekistan; reportedly he is kinder to Christians because of US pressure, but he restricts the religious freedom of Muslims. A few decades ago, our CIA supported the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader in Guatemala because he was too friendly to the Soviets; we were also implicated in the killing of the leader of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. In a more benign example, the US criticizes Al Jazeera for broadcasting anti-American propaganda, even though Al Jazeera is by far the freest Arab media outlet; it is not state-run, and thus is not afraid to criticize the US or Arab governments.

I am not trying to criticize the US here. I am merely pointing out how difficult it can be to control the affairs of people with worldviews entirely different from ours. We often have to sacrifice the freedom of others for the sake of our own security. This was not the wish of our Founders at all; they wanted us never to compromise our dedication to freedom and law. They wanted us to pursue good and independent relations whenever possible. Our model was to be the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. I think it would be wise to distance ourselves from the Medieval political sensibilities of most of the world. We should not continue to pursue a policy that makes us the patron of so many corrupt vassals.

But when we are attacked, we should strike back -- hard. And I think we should help, within the framework of international law, to preserve a worldwide balance of power against aggressors who attack others, too.

Good night, I wrote that poorly. Remind me never to rush a foreign policy comment again.

Wish I could write that well when I'm tired . . .

*Grin* Thanks. I wasn't sure whether I was making any sense or not.