Monday, June 16, 2003


Yes, I believe that practically all WMD were removed/destroyed before the US invaded. I also have always thought that the US military is in some ways a tool for economic/political gain for the US government. I also accept that it is quite likely that either the US gov departments or spy agencies exaggerated wherever possible evidence and claims of WMD. I also accept that al queda probably has not had that much support from Iraq. It is also dubious whether the war concurs with the spirit of international law as it stands (even though technically, it "might" be legal by the letter of the law). But I still think on balance that the war is better than the foreseeable alternatives - both for the Iraqi people, the new world order, and American (and Australian) foreign policy in general. I can't see how any more Iraqis died with the war than would have died at the hands of a dictator, or even just because the economy was completely ruined (different people would have died of course but certainly not less).

To be fair to the US, they could hardly have known whether the WMD's were removed, destroyed or still there somewhere, until they invaded; given Iraq's regime complete and successful secrecy regarding WMD's.

The war and aftermath do however show a distinct weakness in the US with regards to trained peacekeepers, diplomats etc. There is nowhere near enough of the types of personnel they need, and way too many that they don't. Australia seems to have a better balance, but we've got more important issues closer to home (e.g. Solomon Islands). Country building should really become a new industry, and needs a different mix of personnell to kick start the process than the US military has. Hopefully private enterprise can take over once a feeling of general security presides again.


Yay. We won our first division final on Saturday. However, the opposition let us down by only fielding two of their four players.

No comments: