July 13, 2007

WMDs and the Silent Evidence

The Phoenicians supposedly invented the alphabet. However, for a vast number of years, we had virtually no evidence of their writing. Based on this absence of evidence, historians hypothesized about why the Phoenicians didn't keep written records. Thus when it was discovered that the Phoenicians did actually use their alphabet and that absence of evidence was due to the fact that the written records merely struggled to stand the test of time, the hypotheses of historians greatly changed. The lesson is that historians had succumbed to the problem of silent evidence. In other words, the absence of evidence is by no means evidence of absence.

In this light, the most intriguing story to me about the War in Iraq is that of the weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the invasion, there were many intelligence agencies and political figures who trumpeted Saddam's possession of WMDs. However, since the invasion the United States has failed to turn up any weapons of the magnitude described by President Bush and intelligence agencies across the globe. This lack of evidence has contributed to the shrinking support for the war and has even led many Democrats to claim that Bush lied.

Political posturing has created the belief that Democrats supposedly made a mistake in authorizing troops, but that President Bush lied. Alas, this is the world of politics. Elected officials must seize opportunities such as these to maintain power. The political posturing is not surprising and neither is the "conclusion" that Iraq did not have WMDs.

While it is not surprising that in the analysis of the war politicians, experts, and the general public have rejected claims that Iraq possessed WMDs, it does reveal a startling bias. It may be true that Saddam did not possess WMDs on the scale that intelligence communities had claimed or that said weapons did not exist. Regardless, one cannot claim that the weapons did not exist solely on the basis of a lack of evidence.

Perhaps the weapons existed and perhaps they did not. Like the discovery of Phoenician literature, the sudden appearance of WMDs would have a profound effect on the support for the war. This is by no means an attempt to justify the war. This post merely serves as a reminder that the most important lesson that any man can learn is that he possesses far less knowledge than he believes is the case.

Iraq Posted by Harrison Bergeron at July 13, 2007 11:07 AM

I forget his name off the top of my head, but there's the Iraqi general who said, yeah, they shipped tons of materials and equipment to Syria when it looked like an American invasion was coming. And there's the vast desert. Saddam was even burying planes during the first Gulf War to keep them from being destroyed.

Why didn't Saddam admit he still had WMDs? But that presumes he'd have something to gain by telling. If he couldn't kill his enemy George W. Bush, he could at least go to the gallows with the satisfaction of knowing Bush lost credibility.

Such a shame. All I needed was five minutes with the bastard, and he'd have sung like a canary.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 13, 2007 4:08 PM | What do you think? [1]