War and politics

I think the Economist is a great magazine, but man, when they’re wrong, they’re wrong

Or look at the looming war with Iraq. Mr Bush’s critics could not get it more wrong when they charge him with exploiting Iraq for domestic reasons; in fact, the easiest way to secure his popularity would have been to ignore Iraq and concentrate on al-Qaeda. If Mr Bush is right, and Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, then America risks huge casualties; if he is wrong, and Pandora’s box is empty, then he risks looking like a fool.

In no particular order: Bush risks looking like a fool every time he opens his mouth (whether to speak, or merely to eat a pretzel), so there’s nothing new there. I have written before that winning the war on al Qaeda is not a good way to make political points, since A) it wasn’t going very well, and B) success in this “war” is defined by an absence of news. It isn’t very impressive to report “no buildings blown up today.” In a war against Iraq, you can show clear results — which the military can completely stage-manage. Part of the problem here is that the “war on terror” is not a real war. If Iraq possesses WMDs, they still lack the delivery system to reach the USA, and so would have to use them on their own soil (which they’ve done before, admittedly). If they don’t, Bush will simply say they’re well hidden.