GL, I'm going to shorthand this even though I shouldn't.
Pre-war, there was an enormous amount of political knife-fighting amongst NATO nations about what do to about Iraq. A majority of intelligence services, including our own, agreed about the existence of WMDs. There is data suggesting (although I personally believe falling short of proving) there was skullduggery intended to both humiliate the USA (by nations with vested interests, such as France, Russia, and Germany) and "sex up" reasons to invade/liberate Iraq. You may draw your own conclusions, but I typically recommend doing some cursory research first (of things that DON'T already agree with whatever you believe.)
So, the actions to be taken post Resolution 1441 were not solely based on WMD possession, but also on the actions of the regime to date - emphasized by the (then assumed) existence of WMDs.
That said, the final analysis through the Kay Report and the ultimate Duelfer Report, of the ISG, are very clear about at least three things I see as important.
One, Saddam Hussein was clearly non-compliant with any of the UN resolutions passed since Gulf War 1, resolutions that were passed in order to -avoid- continued combat operations I might add. In every way possible, it was his plan and intention to get out from under inspections -in order to rebuild and put into production WMD manufacturing- as soon as possible.
Two, there were no WMDs present in Iraq and their "existence" was for all intents and purposes, a hoax perpetuated by Saddam's regime unto itself. There are many theories why.
Three, most importantly to me at least, he clearly had the capacity to make good on point one should the inspections be completed or lifted - a point that was imminent.
To answer your question directly, I'd say this - we determine who has or intends to have WMDs (or other mass casualty plans, such as demolishing a major dam or sabotaging a nuclear plant) by gathering the best intelligence we can as much as we can and doing as much as possible to verify the authenticity of the data. That is not to say collect -perfect- or -infallible- data, but rather data that can give the most accurate picture possible at the moment.
Clearly "we" (which is difficult to define, as I include most of western civilization in that) did not have the best data about the possession of WMDs. For many, that is enough to invalidate the entirety of the liberation (as I see it.) So be it. I do not agree.
(I wrote this for a forum entry and realized it was good enough to save. Pick holes in it at your leisure.)
Posted by Matt at February 6, 2008 09:04 PMread more »