Continued. . .

So, what kind of threat is Iraq?

I say, based on all that we know to date, the potential was huge. . . but realistically since 1991, not much.

Hell, we've been bombing Iraq since 1991. Everytime they moved an anti-aircraft gun or radar facility below Basra or above Mosul, we smoked it with an air assault. Any military equipment that so much as shuddered near the borders of Iraq was painted with lasers and targeted post-haste. If an Iraqi soldier near the no-fly zone so much as cracked a bad fart, you could count on a violent response from the air force. The last time I remember seeing numbers was before the bombing in 1998. The figures listed a little over 500 air sorties since Desert Storm ended.

Our forces and those of our allies have been crawling all over that country and the neighbors, gathering intel and marking targets since the Iran/Iraq war. In fact, they were there during the war with Iran, but at that time they were marking targets for Hussein (remember the history lesson?).

If Saddam Hussein were up to anything serious since 1991, we'd know. . . and it wouldn't simply be speculation in the media.

When we sent the inspectors back into Iraq, we had Hussein over a barrel with his britches around his knees. Even if he had been up to anything before, once those inspectors showed up he was paralyzed. The eyes of the entire world were on him, expecting at any moment for the inspectors to turn up that "smoking gun" that Bush kept crowing about.

Except the smoking gun never turned up. "Well, he's hiding it!" they shouted.

Fine. We increased the number of inspectors, tightened the screws, and told Hussein we were serious about this. Still, nothing showed up. "Well, he's hiding it really good!" they shouted.

And here's where I believe we screwed the pooch.

First of all, the US has one of the most sophisticated, high and low tech intelligence networks in the world. We have satellite based surveilance tools, stealth aircraft equipped with insanely sensitive "spy" equipment, and operatives and sources on the ground throughout the Middle East. In addition, we have allies like Israel whose intelligence and surveilance resources are second only to the US. . . possibly even better when it comes to the Middle East.

And with all this at our disposal, the best the US could point to as "evidence" was a "terrorist camp" in the far northeast of Iraq, in a part of the country not even controlled by Saddam Hussein. A camp, by the way, that we could have and should have decimated early on in our attacks on Al Qaeda. One might wonder why it was left intact for so long.

If Hussein had so much as sent $20 to the Kabul Special Olympics, you can believe we would have known about it. Whatever threat he may have been before, while the microscope of the world was turned on him there was nothing he could do. We had all the time in the world to search every grain of sand in Iraq if necessary.

There was no reason for the rush to unilateral action, and personally, I'm puzzled at the way it played out.

Why did Bush and Co. go blasting into Iraq? Was it because there was a realization that, in light of the lack of evidence that even their own people would lose interest in waging war? Was it a need to strike while the iron was hot, while Americans still burned with the bloodlust and hunger for vengeance that led us into Afghanistan? Was it the sudden knowledge that, if all the claims proved false, public and global faith in the leadership would crumble?

Why is it that, after easily gaining international support for our other wars in the Middle East, we weren't able to achieve that same support for this one?

I think it is because, like many of the American people, the UN Council realized that they were being lied to and manipulated. They refused to be bullied, and insisted that Bush and Co. deliver some of this "evidence." For all the bluster and noise, that evidence simply didn't exist. Maybe it never did. I can't say for sure. Only time will tell, as the invasion continues into its fourth week.

I'm honestly surprised that we haven't found some weapons of mass destruction. Despite my skepticism, I sure figured Hussein must be holding out with something.

Quick review of relevant points:

• Iraq has undergone regular bombing and probing attacks since 1991. Military targets in or around the No-Fly Zones are constantly destroyed.
• Intelligence and other special forces have been on the ground in Iraq constantly for over 10 years. It's doubtful that any major developments could have gone unnoticed or unreported.
• Despite this level of scrutiny, no "smoking gun" evidence has been made available
• Bush Administration claims that Hussein is hiding his WMD, but intelligence and surveillance capabilities of US, Britain, and Israel make it highly unlikely that anything on the scale of weapons development or movement would be undetected
• With UN inspectors in Iraq in 2002, and global focus on the country, any possible threat from Iraq would have been neutralized. There was time for true coalition building, and time for alternate actions besides war
• Bush chose to essentially take unilateral military action against Iraq, despite lack of support from global community. He chose to rush in, when time was available for alternatives. The question to be answered is, "Why?"

Hanging in so far? Told you it was long. Read on, then.