Originally posted by JaTo:I'll refer you to Occam's razor, then. When regime change would in no way accomplish what we set out to do (address our concerns of WMD in Iraq), why would we send in the military to do such a thing and THAT alone?
Indeed ... and IMO this is the crux of the matter. The answer is this:
Because there was indeed no definitive and sure way of successfully rendering harmless Iraq's WMD (as you have so eloquently pointed out) the only alternative was to in fact change the objective to one that could be achieved.
And although that particular objective was not nearly so palatable to the public or to the Security Council, it could however be wrapped up and associated with WMD for consumption purposes ... and that objective was a change in the Iraqi regime.
From the Bush perspective, the alternative was to do nothing (and more importantly be perceived as doing nothing by the American people) at a time when it became apparent that the apprehension of Bin Laden was in doubt.
A new rallying cry was needed, a new focus for the war on terror was needed, a new (achievable) objective was needed. "Disarming Saddam ..." was the obvious choice.
And BTW:
Originally posted by JaTo:... you insist on calling it a military failure instead of an intelligence failure?
Why do you insist that "military" and "intelligence" do not belong together ... or do you not believe that the military has their own intelligence capability.
Debating whether a failure is "intelligence" or in the alternative "military" is splitting hairs. The are equally one and the same.
In any event, my reference to "failure" is with respect to the objective, which the military was not able to achieve, as opposed to your narrow definition of military success; a subtle, but very important distinction.
