Revisionism and the war in Iraq
First off, don’t think I speak idly when I talk about the war. My cousin served time in Afghanistan (he’s now training to be a Delta Force member, one certified tough S.O.B.), and I know the importance of security. But, President Bush is driving me nuts.
First off, we had the rationale for going to war as “Hussein is an imminent threat to the U.S.” That’s been pretty well discredited, even with the most recent weapons inspector reports. However, Bush has seized upon the findings saying that Saddam indeed was trying to restart the W.M.D. programs but couldn’t.
Why couldn’t he? The U.N. sanctions.
That’s right, the multinational body imposed sanctions on Saddam that prevented him from being able to restart the programs.
The big question I have is whether or not the sanctions would have continued to prevent Saddam from building Ws.M.D. had we not rushed into the war. The sanctions were apparently doing their job, but we had to go to war.
Ultimately, it’s a moot issue; we can spend hours talking about it, but we won’t resolve anything, except perhaps the election in November.
Saddam was a bad guy. He murdered his own people; his sons were horrible torturers, etc. etc. etc. But did we have to rush into war so soon?
I really shouldn’t comment. It’s not like I expect to change anyone’s mind, because I think you and I live in two different worlds.
In your world, 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions equals a rush to war. The report on his WMD also showed how he was gaming the system to (a) end sanctions, and (b) ramp up his WMD programs as soon as sanctions ended. But let us set that aside.
You know about his sons torturing. I’m assuming the mass graves of women and children are part of your "etc, etc, etc." So, let me put it to you simply:
How many people would have been saved if we had rushed to war even quicker? How many were murdered, tortured, fed to shredding machines per day? How many more days would you have us wait?
Yes, the situation is still awful over there, yes, there are terrorists pouring across the border. But frankly, I’d prefer them pouring over the Iraqi border than pouring over OUR border.
From the Pres, Sept 2002.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped — by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge — by his deceptions, and by his cruelties — Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime’s repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents — and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General’s high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq’s regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations’ inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program — weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq’s state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.
In 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime’s compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq’s serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq’s clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
As we meet today, it’s been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We’ve tried sanctions. We’ve tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a — nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The question becomes one of which it’s awfully easy to get rhetorical: is the U.S. the world’s policeman? If so, why aren’t we doing anything to stop other atrocities in other places?
And in answer to Bush’s speech, both Iran and North Korea are embarking on programs of nuclear enrichment. Where are the sanctions or UN outrage at them? We don’t want to upset North Korea, because South Korea could get vaporized.
If I remember correctly, Iraq published a 1700 page document in response to the allegations that was summarily dismissed as lies.
The context of rushing to war is that of attacking Iraq immediately after Afghanistan. Doing so creates the perception of a connection ("Saddam had something to do with 9/11"). Clinton bombed Iraq repeatedly during his time in office, yet that was never under the context of war.
Sigh. It’s a complex subject.
"Why aren’t we doing anything to stop other atrocities"
Iraq: 12 years, 17 U.N. Resolutions.
Iran, N Korea : Nope.
With North Korea, Bush is trying to get other countries within the theatre, specifically China, involved.
Kerry says that we should do it unilaterally. Why would that work anymore than what we had before? Why is unilateral good here, but a harsh (and untrue) accusation about Iran?
duh. Last sentence Iran -> Iraq 🙂