The Imminence Myth

From the Weekly Standard

It should not be terribly surprising or newsworthy even that the CIA never deemed Iraq an imminent threat. If agency analysts had ever concluded that an attack from Iraq was "about to occur" or "impending," to use the dictionary definition of imminent, it's fair to assume that they would have told the president forthwith, rather than holding the information for inclusion in a periodic assessment of threats. And the president would not have taken 18 months to act to protect the nation.

In fact, the case for war was built largely on the opposite assumption: that waiting until Iraq presented an imminent threat was too risky. The president himself made this argument in his 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

It didn't take long for the media to get it wrong. One day after Bush said we must not wait until the threat is imminent, the Los Angeles Times reported on its front page that Bush had promised "new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world." Also, "Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent." Exactly backwards...

Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, objected. The day after the 2003 State of the Union address, he introduced a short-lived bill that would have required the administration to show that Iraq posed an imminent threat. It was the administration's willingness to go to war even while conceding that the threat was not imminent that provoked opponents of the war. Inspections could continue, the critics urged, because there was no imminent danger.

But in the present politically charged season, positions have shifted. Many of the same people who criticized the Bush administration before the war for moving against a threat that was not imminent are today blaming the administration for supposedly having claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

This is an interesting article, because it shows that some of the common judgements are not accurate, but also because it very carefully ignores an important element. While I''m surprised to find that the imminence argument is not entirely true, it''s not entirely false either. I believe after looking at some of Bush''s speeches and statements of his administration that they actually made both the claim that we cannot wait until Iraq attacks or is ready to attack, but also that Iraq was a current threat. Not literally an imminent threat, but an urgent one, a grave one - superlatives that are very close in meaning to imminent. The interesting thing is that the qualifiers usually refer to his *possession* of WMD and delivery mechanisms in the speeches and statements. Given that that has not yet turned out to be accurate, if one can wave hands and refocus that part of the discussion on literal imminence, it''s dismissal removes any concern about the missing WMD''s. I think that that is spin at it''s best.

Let''s look at Bush''s speech on October 7, 2002 at the Cincinnati Museum Center. It''s here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...
It''s pretty typical of what I found looking over some of the speeches and statements in context.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America''s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime''s own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq''s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

This is the opening of the speech. Already, it''s obvious that there are at least two arguments here. Iraq has a history of use of WMD (and thus a future) - that''s the one that the article posted refers to. But note also that the possession argument is used to make the danger current. It means that no one can say ""but that''s 5 years out, why worry about it?"" Worry because they could actually attack now, it says to me. Imminence? Not in so many words...but the inference is there. A country with a leader as bizarre as Saddam, in possession of biological and chemical weapons, is indeed a current threat, an imminent threat.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

This is another interesting bit. It immediately follows the first quote, and the natural association is that of Iraq and 9/11. If not in action, then in intent. The picture created in the mind is that of Iraq attacking suddenly, with it''s existing biological and chemical weapons, in a way that might not even be traceable to it (ie, through terrorists. This, again, highlights a current threat, an imminent one - not in those words, but usefully so.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Continuing on, we come to an interestingly ambiguous phrase. Did the Iraqis threaten us? Are they threatening now, or is that a reference to a future threat? We can''t tell. It could be read as a current threat - or as a future one. I''m going to take the mention of nukes and say this falls in the future camp. But it''s not a clear statement, time-wise.

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we''ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

Interesting. ""Why be concerned now?"" Let''s see what he has to say as we move along.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq''s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, ""The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.""

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

This section identifies Hussein as aggressive, dangerous to us and those around him, unpredictable and - note the last paragraph - both a current and a future threat.

That''s not what the thrust of the Weekly Standard article concludes. A current threat is also an imminent threat. And Mr. Bush has made that argument here, with the statement that he already has these dangerous weapons,a nd if we wait, the *weapons* will get worse and worse.

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq''s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We''ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We''re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren''t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

This is both a list of the current weapons, and a reaffirming of the current, or imminent, nature of the threat. It also cites the future threat (from UAVs) - both arguments are made, and not in opposition, as the Weekly Standard would have it. But this section goes down mostly on the current threat side.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein''s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We''ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein''s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Now we get more methods and motives for attack. Terrorists are brought into the argument, and with the war on terror just over a year old, this is a direct, frightening, current image for Americans. And look at the next paragraph.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

""...On any given day"". That''s not a long-term future threat. That''s a current, and an imminent threat. There is no doubt there that we could even at the time of the speech be coming under attack. We could listen to the speech, and read about the attack tomorrow. ""on any given day"". Weakly future, strongly current.

The speech moves on to areas that are not directly related to either future or current threats, or those that amplify earlier statements. I''ll skip ahead to the next to last paragraph.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda''s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein''s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We''ve been put on notice. That''s decidely a statement of current threat, not a far or middle future one. That''s something we have to deal with now.

The Weekly Standard article is correct literally, but materially wrong. Even in just this one speech, the administration mixed both the arguments, future and current threats, together, to create a compelling reason for moving now to avoid even worse possibilities in the future. But there are several statements about current threats that just don''t fit the WS analysis. We should not forget or brush aside the actual arguments that were made, for the sake of what is clearly a straw man, the use of the term imminent by the Administration.

Imminent means ""threatening to occur immediately"" - certainly that applies to the ""any given day"" arguments Bush made in this speech. It means ""near at hand"" - that''s clear too. It also means ""impending"", and I believe that''s implied as well.

While the WS article puts the lie to the liberal literalists, a careful reading of it shows that it''s designed more to shift the stage than to directly refute. This is not an argument that should free the Administration from it''s responsibility for not finding the current, imminent part of the threat - existing WMD''s in Iraq, ready to be used on any given day against Americans.

Robear