September 11, Crisis Resolution

Articles

Interviews

Letters

Responses to September 11th

Speeches

"Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Does It Matter?"

Dennis Sandole
Prof. of Conflict Resolution and International Relations

Letter to the Editor

When he surrendered to U.S. forces in April, Iraqi Lieutenant
General Amer al-Saadi, Saddam Hussein's erudite top biological/chemical weapons advisor, said on German TV that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that time would bear him out.

While visiting Poland on May 29 during his recent trip to Europe,
U.S. President George W. Bush, in response to queries indicating that, thus far, al-Saadi had been proven right, said that the weapons had indeed been found: two trailers with laboratory equipment but no pathogens inside them.

It would seem defining "weapons of mass destruction" is becoming as problematic as defining "fetus." But in any case, does it really
matter? Once September 11, 2001 happened and U.S. military personnel shed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq, all the President has had to do to enhance and maintain consensus is to elevate the color-coded terror alert.

Perhaps Doonesbury got it right this weekend (1 June), with Arie
Fleischer apparently addressing the White House Press Corps to the effect that, "Starting today, and continuing through next year's
election, the answer to any question posed to this White House will be 9/11."