Saddam and 9/11

The fact that a large majority of Americans believe that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 is often mentioned as an embarrassing little fact about the political and worldly awareness of Americans, and, therefore, a glaring hole in the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Bush has repeatedly tied Iraq to 9/11, the argument goes, so the fact that Americans believe Saddam to have been involved in 9/11 explains their support for the war:

Before I go on, let me get one thing straight. I don't believe Saddam Hussein was involved in planning or otherwise perpetrating 9/11, and I doubt he even had foreknowledge that it was going to occur. The lack of evidence at this point is pretty convincing. The fact that most Americans do believe there is such a link should give us pause, and we should ask ourselves why that is the case. However, the very question—and the assumption that an incorrect answer to the question means the war was not thought through correctly—demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the justification for the war.

Think back to September 11. We had no idea, at first, who was responsible. It seemed perfectly plausible, even likely, that Saddam Hussein was at least partially involved in planning or coordinating the attack. There was a resolve to find out, and to get, "dead or alive", whoever it was. But, more importantly, there was an increasing sense that in the grand scheme of things, it didn't really matter so much. President Bush made it clear right from the beginning that the War on Terrorism would be just that, a war on terrorism, not merely a war on the direct perpetrators of 9/11. We already knew about the terrorist organizations out there, and we already knew about the states that supported them. What we didn't know is that we can't afford to wait for an act of war against us to do something about it.

For someone who hasn't been following all the events, and keeping up-to-date on the publicly-available intelligence about 9/11, it could still seem likely, two years after the fact, that Saddam Hussein was involved in perpetrating 9/11. That's my explanation for the widespread belief, but it's not an excuse. These are important matters and Americans have a responsibility to make sure they're informed about issues this important.

However, one thing that is certain is that President Bush never stated that Saddam Hussein actually was involved. Nor has he or any major administration official—or, as far as I know, any reputable person arguing for the Iraq war—stated that we should invade Iraq because Iraq helped make 9/11 happen. There has been a continual linking of the invasion of Iraq to 9/11, not because Iraq was responsible for it, but precisely because 9/11 taught us that we can't wait for states that we know are willing and able to perpetrate terrorist attacks against us, to do so.

I believe what I just put forth is the logic of most Americans, and the reason they don't know that Saddam Hussein isn't responsible for 9/11 is because they recognize that, on the big question—invading Iraq—it doesn't really matter. Now, again, that is no excuse. People should care enough about these issues that they know the answer to that question anyway, since it is still very important, but I don't think the lack of ability to correctly answer it demonstrates a lack of moral understanding regarding the Iraq war. In a way, the apathy Americans have demonstrated towards knowing the answer to that question can be viewed as evidence that they do get the fundamental moral issue here.

There would, of course, be an easy way to determine if this is actually the case. In addition to the question, "Do you believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11?", there should be two additional questions on future polls: "Do you support the coalition invasion of Iraq?", and, "If you answered yes to both questions, but it turned out that Saddam Hussein was not personally involved in 9/11, would you still have supported the coalition invasion of Iraq?" I believe that most Americans would unequivocally answer "Yes" to that last question.

How can you support the war when it was all for oil? Because of some imaginary link with 9/11?

It seems strange to call "stopping terrorism" by the name "oil". usually "oil" means black stuff found in the ground.