This may not be the proper forum to post this on since it’s not truly “history” but a theory about contemporary events, but I figured it’s as good a place as any to have some smart eyes look over it.

Anyway, this is a theory I've been playing with for some time now. I'm looking for intelligent and reasonable criticism, not an echo chamber or irrational denunciations from the tinfoil hat crowd.

OK, here goes:
1.) It would not matter one iota if we had found all the weapons of mass destruction in the world in Iraq. The geostrategic and domestic situations would be identical no matter the stage of development or possession of WMDs. Take that assertion at face value and let me back up a bit.


Does anyone rationally believe that if we had found stockpiles of fully armed and functional nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, the terrorists would not be there right now? In other words, if moments after the invasion when we hypothetically found all these banned weapons Zarqawi and the rest of the terrorists would have said to themselves ""Well, Bush was right. There really were all those wepons. We can't go fight the US there now because we'll look like the jerks instead of the other way around if there had been no weapons"? Put another way, does anyone really believe that the terrorists gave a tinker's damn about Saddam's weapons of the lack thereof as a pretext to fight us?

2.) The same applies to the "lack of international support" the war has. First of all, we all know this is a preposterous lie. But even if it is true, would it matter to Al Queda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad or any other dark age terrorist if the UN had voted unanimously (Iraq included) for the war? Would they not be fighting us and killing Iraqis if France had sent in an infantry corps or two? Would they not be waging war against us if Israel had abstained or even opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom?

3.) To the home front: any and all domestic and international opposition to the war would be exactly the same even if the WMD situation had been as described as above. In fact, it could conceivably be worse. Think about it: the Left would be able to claim "Mission accomplished" so to speak if we had found the WMDs gift wrapped for us after the invasion. "The causus belli has been removed" they would claim and be even more insistent that we bring the troops home and end the "occupation" (which would have suddenly turned "lawful" either by UN approval or the discovery of the fabled weapons.) Discovery of the weapons would have impelled them to mount Bring Home the Troops movements even sooner. Imagine Cindy Sheehan in this alternate scenario we have been discussing: "The weapons were found. Saddam was removed from power. America's objectives are accomplished. George Bush murdered my son for absolutely nothing. The troops need to come home now. Right now." Discovery of fully armed and operational weapons could theoretically have given the Left the moral high ground in the post-war debate.

Beyond that, it is plain that most of the people who have been inverately opposed to the war (ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Socialist parties the world over, etc.) would oppose the war no matter the outcome, reason, prosecution, presence of terrorists, or anything. They are contrary for contrariness's sake.

In conclusion: the international and domestic situations would be unchanged even if the hunt for WMDs had turned up exactly what we thought it should.

Thoughts?