Moral armour of Bush, Blair grows more rusty
The battle for the moral high ground over the decision to invade Iraq has, for the coalition powers, proved to be tougher than the military campaign itself.
From the outset, the legitimacy of the invasion depended on making a case that regime change in Baghdad was necessary, as a matter of urgency, in order to save the world from a grave danger. For President George W. Bush and his ally Tony Blair, this meant placing the attack at the forefront of the war against terror. Relying on the horror evoked by the September 11 attacks, justification for the assault on Iraq was tied to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his alleged links to the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. Without this context, the invasion would have been almost impossible to sell to their domestic constituencies, let alone the rest of the world.
It is therefore disturbing that, despite every effort made by the respective governments to maintain their claims to have acted for the general good, suspicions of ulterior motives persist. Indeed, as time goes on, doubts about the claims used to justify the invasion appear to be growing stronger. The weapons of mass destruction have still not been found and statements that Saddam Hussein had sinister links with al-Qaeda have been largely discredited. In recent days, fresh chinks in the moral armour of the US, in particular, have emerged.
Last weekend, former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill told a television audience Mr Bush had been determined to oust Hussein from the moment he took office. Mr O'Neill even referred to a memo marked 'plan for post-Saddam Iraq', which he said was in existence in early 2001, months before the September 11 attacks. If true, the comments suggest that the war on terror, rather than being the reason for the invasion, was more an excuse for Mr Bush to pursue a course of action which had long been on his agenda. They make for unpalatable reading.
Mr O'Neill's revelations follow remarks made by Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz last May to the effect that supposed fears about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had merely provided a convenient smokescreen concealing other reasons for the war. And now, a veteran US defence expert has described the invasion as 'an unnecessary, preventive war of choice' and a distraction from the pursuit of al-Qaeda.
Mr Bush and Mr Blair have little choice but to meet each allegation head on and to stick to their argument that Hussein's removal simply was essential. But they are addressing increasingly sceptical publics in both countries. As the US president prepares for an election and his British counterpart awaits the findings of the Hutton inquiry, the circumstances in which the invasion was launched may well come back to haunt them.