Continued. . .

Now that we have a little historical context, I should note that a straight comparison of 1991's Desert Storm and 2003's Operation Iraqi Freedom is not going to be completely accurate. But some of the more vital differences are extremely important to note.

First and foremost, to the reasons we were given for engaging in this war:

Following the terrorist attacks of 09/11/01, our country and our government seemed to have a sudden epiphany about the real dangers of terrorism. The potential for an unfriendly country to supply super-powerful weapons to terrorist groups became less like a Tom Clancy novel and more like real life. Iraq, in large part because of past (pre-1991) activities, became a prime suspect.

Since the end of the first Gulf War, Hussein has consistently denied possession of further Weapons of Mass Destruction. At the same time, he presented roadblock after roadblock to UN inspectors assigned to verify his claims, and to search for any undocumented weapons. In 1998, the inspectors were pulled out and bombs fell on Iraq. Following 9/11, at the insistence of the Bush Administration, the inspectors returned to continue their search.

In late 2002, the Bush Administration alleged that the US had "smoking gun" evidence of Hussein's defiance of the UN sanctions against Weapons of Mass Destruction. We were told that Hussein was clearly still developing and in possession of both chemical weapons and long-range rockets to deliver them, both of which would constitute serious breaches of the sanctions. Not only was the threat that Hussein himself might use these weapons at issue; the threat that he might sell them to terrorists such as Al Qaeda was too deadly to ignore.

The Bush Administration flatly alleged that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to Al Qaeda, and as such was a likely conduit of weapons of mass destruction into the hands of these terrorists. The smoking gun, when revealed, would also point at this terrorist connection.

However, despite repeated promises that this smoking gun would be revealed to the world, it never materialized. Inspectors, operatives on the ground, and high-tech surveilance simply did not provide any proof that Iraq was in violation of anything. The only damning evidence at all was the discovery of a program to develop an unmanned drone aircraft.

Even as the world waited for proof of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush/Blair coalition turned to "hints" that Iraq had re-started a program to develop nuclear weapons. This fell apart when the documents used as evidence turned out to be forgeries.

Finally, the Bush Administration played their weakest card. . . the accusation of human rights abuses perpetrated in Iraq by Hussein and his administration. This one was easy to prove, and images from the 1988 gas attacks suddenly appeared on television screens again. Horror stories from Iraqi refugees, Kurdish, Shi'ite, and even Sunnis soon flooded the newspapers and television screens.

The regime was painted in the blackest of shades, demonized and vilified. And most of this was probably righteous. There's very little question that Hussein did some terrible things. Most of those terrible things, though, were done in the face of a complacent world.

These abuses, in themselves, simply do not constitute the grounds for going to war. The precedent such an action would set would be daunting. Using the basis of humanitarian abuses as grounds for declaring war would give the US and "Coalition" forces the right, even the responsibility, to invade a large portion of the African continent, dozens of countries throughout the Middle East and Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, several Pacific islands, and portions of South and Central America.

In the end, these "justifications" and arguments for war fell on the deaf ears of the global community, e. g. the UN Security Council. The world was not convinced that this war was righteous or necessary. In a move reeking of arrogance, Bush and Blair dismissed the UN (and, hence, the world opinion) as irrelevant and planned and executed their own war.

I (and an awful lot of other people) think this was a major-league blunder.

If it were only me remaining skeptical of the evidence that Bush and the UN Inspectors provided, then perhaps I wouldn't be so critical. I realize what a tiny piece of the intelligence picture I am privy to. If Bush had convinced the rest of the world that Hussein's threat was real, and that war was the only logical response, then I would have to accept that there must be some pretty compelling evidence. Despite what the neo-conservatives say, the UN membership is hardly lacking in IQ points. There are some smart men and sharp diplomats in that organization.

So for another quick summary:

• The Bush Administration's justifications for war are:
1. Hussein possesses and/or is developing weapons of mass destruction
2. Hussein has ties to terrorist networks, particularly Al Qaeda and may provide these weapons of mass destruction to these terrorists
3. Hussein is developing nuclear weapons (this assertion has been pretty clearly discredited)
4. Hussein is an evil dictator who rules by terror and violence
• The Bush Administration has only been able to provide clear evidence of the latter accusation
• The UN Security Council has been unconvinced of any "evidence" that would be grounds for war
• Unlike the 1991 Gulf War, or the 2001 war in Afghanistan, the US (and Britain) do not have global support for the war

Still with me? Then keep reading.