31 May 2003, 9:09 AM
Your Humble Blogger, usually, struggles to avoid cynicism, but is forced to it by events. However, there's an odd sequence of events, where Your Humble Blogger predicted, out of a sort of cynicism, events which didn't ultimately take place. Was I too cynical, or not cynical enough?
US forces in Iraq have, bizarrely, failed to find any remotely persuasive evidence of a chemical or biological weapons program. I say bizarrely because I (and nearly everyone I know) predicted that the forces would arrive ready to plant evidence, on the chance that there was no actual program. It's what I would do. I mean, if I were scrupulous, I wouldn't, but if I were scrupulous, I wouldn't have got into the habit of misleading people about a variety of things.
Look, the one way that the US looks good to the world after the invasion is if we can hold up canisters of smallpox and say, "See! We were right! You were wrong! The threat was real, and we've saved millions of lives by our timely intervention!" Many people would have believed that we had planted the evidence (whether we had or not), but we would have been justified in many eyes.
Digression: Another way, ultimately, to restore the US to the good graces or at least the better graces of the world is to build a paradise in Iraq. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, like Cato saying Delenda Carthago, until I either die or persuade somebody. End Digression.
So, the question is, was I too cynical, and the US rejected the planting of false information because it would be wrong? Or was I not cynical enough, thinking foolishly that Our Only President and his gang cared at all about world opinion?