Normblog notes an interview with Robin Cook:
Cook returns to the matter of WMD, and disarming Iraq, and whether Iraq was a threat, and is then asked by the interviewer, ‘Would Saddam still be there?’ Here is the money passage, Cook’s reply to that question:
Umm… Well, that of course… the longer the period that passes… it is now some two years since the invasion… the longer, that becomes a speculative question. Anybody who has seen Saddam Hussein emerge from his hole and has seen the disordered, deranged mind that he now has, is bound to ask whether those that were actually saying at the time of the invasion that Saddam would fall in his time, would probably have been right by now.
Better read it again. (You’re right – there’s no reference to the Hussein boys, Uday and Qusay.) I referred in my previous post to the ‘self-comforting ways’ in which some people manage to evade the fact that but for George Bush and Tony Blair Saddam Hussein’s regime would still be extant.
This is, as A.E. Brain so succinctly puts it, Stark Idiocy. I think I’ve mentioned before the conversation I had with an opponent of the invasion of Iraq in June or July of 2003(!). I was told that “things were changing” and that we didn’t even know if Saddam would still be in power if we hadn’t invaded.
This is like the “Reagan didn’t win the Cold War because the Soviet Union was doomed to fail anyway” theory on steroids.
Sure, Saddam would eventually be out of power. Probably when he died of natural causes. And then one of his sons or hand-picked successors would have stepped in. Just like the Soviet Union would eventually have collapsed. Probably decades or centuries later than it did, as all nations will eventually succumb to the forces of time.
Should we have been willing to wait? In either case? I think not.
When Cook mentions the ragged-looking Saddam, he seems to be conveniently ignoring the factors that got him into that spider hole. Most of them wear reversed US flags on their right shoulders.