The “root causes” of terrorism, the actual ones not the fantasies of those who generally use the term, lie in the dysfunctional Arab and Persian political culture. It is that political culture that keeps thtrowing up tyrants into power there. For those who are enamored of the economic “root causes” foolishness, it is those tyrants whose rule brings about the lousy economic conditions of the Middle East. So even that grows directly out of the dysfunctional political culture. The radical Islamists arose as an alternative to the failed Pan-Arab Nationalists like Nasser who had made such a mess of things yet still clung to power as tyrants. This movement actually has no more promise of success than the earlier one, as we can see in Iran. But frequently the mosque is the only political breathing space people have in Arab countries.

So if the jihadists are to be permanently defeated (or as permanently as possible) the dysfunctional political culture will have to be reformed, as it was in Germany and Japan after WWII. The virus of liberty had to be injected into the Middle East. Western specialist in the Arab culture have always thought Iraq was the most promising Arab country for modernizatrion because of the character of its people. So Iraq was the logical place to start this process.

There was also the matter of Saddam being a long time enemy of the USA, certainly at least since 1990. His continued presence tyrannizing his people and threatening war with others made a mockery of the US. It was a sign of US weakness that we did not need after 9/11, which was brought on in part by the perception of US weakness.

The Iraq Campaign also gave the US the opportunity to fight the jihadists on grounds of our own choosing. Geographically we could fight them in the Middle East instead of in New York. Tactically we could pit skilled US soldiers and Marines against them, instead of relying on unarmed airline stewardesses and passengers to do the fighting. Strategically it allowed us to seize the initiative from the jihadists, to make them react to our moves rather than we to their’s. Taking the initiative away from the enemy is always important in winning a war. Finally it allowed us to pit our big idea against their big idea. The jihadists’ big idea is a new caliphate, where Muslims will swagger around lording it over the wretched dhimmis. It’s an attractive vision for Muslims stuck under tha thumb of Mubarak, Assad, or some despotic King or Amir. Our big idea is liberty and prosperity in the modern world. That is also an attractive idea. Which will win? It’s still in dispute, and will be for a long time.

There was an additional aspect that I think we did not expect but has helped us in the war of ideas. Nobody expected the jihadists to be so savagly bloodthirsty against fellow Muslims. Their terrorism, approved by so many Muslims when directed against Jews and Americans, sickened them when directed against them. This has led to a major diminution of support for the jihadists in the Muslim world.

Sorry for the long post, but WMD is only a part of the story, and I think not the greater part, however necessary it was to make sure that Saddam or his psychopathic spawn did not have nukes to throw around the next time they wanted to invade Kuwait for its oil, or to throw at Israel in support of Saddam’s fantasy of being the new Saladin.