I’ve been trying to find a link for this, and not succeeding. So much as it irks me it will have to be without reference that I refer to Paul Wolfowitz’s comments that the recent spate of bombings in Iraq could be directly attributed to Saddam Hussein and his cohort.
That those comments were made publicly is intriguing. The party line has been that these attacks are being not only carried out, but also co-ordinated by ‘foreign fighters’, extra-nationals who are taking advantage of the situation to work out their aggressive feelings towards the western world. If that is the case, it is entirely possible to pass the bombings off as acts of terrorism.
But it Wolfowitz is right and the party line is wrong, then the attacks look not so much like acts of terrorism but more like continued actions in an ongoing war. Hussein’s army may have been largely decimated but that doesn’t mean the war is won. War is not defined by the weapons available to either party and perhaps we should be asking questions about what grounds the president of the aggressor needs to declare that a war is over?
It is difficult to judge as yet whether Wolfowitz’s comments mark a change in official policy. As a driver of official policy it is unlikely that he is speaking unbriefed. Surely that has to raise questions?