The scorecard in Iraq (part 3): Risky business

As a kid, I used to ride my bicycle without a helmet--gasp! Yeah, I was quite the little daredevil. But times have changed, and today we don't dare let my 11-year-old roll her scooter down the driveway without proper headgear. Too risky. So what does this have to do with Iraq? Risk, my friends, it's all about risk.

The fundamental reason we went to war in Iraq was because it was too risky NOT to go. The mass murder of 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, changed our collective perception of risk forever -- at least it should have. Threats to our security (such as our lives and our children's lives) can no longer be measured in readily quantifiable terms. Threats must be assessed in terms of risk. How much risk are we willing to accept?

Opponents of the war--or perhaps more accurately opponents of George W. Bush--have made huge stacks of political hay out of the failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They've also done everything they can to assail, discredit or ignore the evidence of links between the Iraqi dictatorship and al-Qaida killers. In doing so, they confound themselves and the public.

It wasn't simply Iraq's covert WMD programs that brought us to war. It was the danger (growing, gathering, impending, imminent or otherwise) that Saddam's depraved and twisted regime might share such materials or technology with al-Qaida or its affiliates.

It should be obvious by now that the umbrella group Osama bin-Laden founded is not a typical organization with a wiring diagram. Al-Qaida is more of an organic network, a movement. This is precisely why it is so dangerous. With its combination of fanaticism, fiendish innovation, adaptability, hatred and intent to inflict wholesale death and destruction, any al-Qaida access to chemical, biological or nuclear technology poses an unacceptable risk.

It is now obvious that the body of evidence reviewed by President Bush and his advisers after 9-11 and before the war in Iraq included many reports of linkages between Saddam's regime and the shadowy, lethal network of al-Qaida. Those reported linkages included:

• Meetings and liaison relationships between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida operatives going back to the early 1990s.

• Training on explosives and chemical/biological warfare provided by Iraqis to al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

• Sanctioned visits to Baghdad by bin-Laden's No. 2 man, Zawahiri, and other working-level operatives.

• The presence of an al-Qaida-affiliated group, Ansar al Islam, in northern Iraq and reports of liaison with and funding support from Iraqi intelligence.

• A prominent al-Qaida associate receiving extensive medical care in Baghdad. This was Zarqawi, the man apparently behind so many recent bombings and a specialist in toxins and chemical/biological agents.

Now add the other factors that had to be evaluated in the wake of 9-11:

• Mysterious anthrax attacks that paralyzed this country with just a few envelopes

• Discovery of a plot by an al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla to detonate a radiological "dirty" bomb on U.S. soil

• A thwarted plan by Zarqawi's network to use deadly toxins against the London subway system

Now imagine you're President of the United States, and your country has recently experienced the most deadly surprise attack in its history. If you had to evaluate the risk of al-Qaida or an al-Qaida ally getting access to WMD material or know-how from the sadistic monsters in Saddam's genocidal regime, how would you rate that risk?

Would you characterize it as a 50 percent or a 25 percent chance? Considering sketchy sources, maybe you'd bring it down to 10 percent or even into single digits. Just for grins, let's posit a low 5 percent chance that Saddam might share WMD with al-Qaida.

Now look at your kids--who you won't let in a car without a seat belt, or on a bike without a helmet. What kind of risks are you willing to take with their future?

T.T.

©2004, WestRim Digital Arts