Retroactive Justification for the Invasion of Iraq

“CIA Study on Iraq Weapons Is Off Course, Officials Say,” Aug. 20, reported that the CIA was preparing a report that would speculate on what weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein “might” have been able to produce by 2008, had President Bush not invaded Iraq in 2003. [On Saturday, in responding to criticism, a CIA officer acknowledged that the idea had been discussed but said no projection would be made.] The only purpose of such a report would be to retroactively justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which found no WMD in that country.

By this logic, would not Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor also be retroactively justified, based on the fact that the U.S. was able to develop and employ the atomic bomb by 1945?

William Lorton

Los Angeles

*

What a fantastic idea! But why stop there? The CIA should write a report about Osama Bin Laden, a what-if report on the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and the results of not training Bin Laden. Also in the works should be a what-if report on Iraq. What if U.S. involvement had not helped Hussein hold his power and what if the U.S. had not supplied chemical weapon technology to Iraq?

Why stop there? What if America had not been involved in the overthrow of democratically elected Salvador Allende? What if the U.S. hadn’t supplied arms to the Contras to help them overthrow the democratically elected but communist Sandinistas? What would the world be like today if the CIA were not involved in the overthrow of democratically elected governments?

Lawrence Turner

Glendora

*

I had no idea the CIA was so psychic. Why, this changes everything! Forget Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) as CIA director. Let’s nominate Sylvia Browne to head the agency.

Barbara Davilman

Valley Village