Into the BreachThe U.N. says Saddam flunked his test. Does that mean we go to war?
Posted Monday, Jan. 27, 2003, at 5:55 PM ETIf U.N. Resolution 1441 were taken literally, then Inspector Hans Blix's comments before the Security Council Monday morning would pave the way for war. This was a tough statement, sternly delivered. "Iraq appears not to have come to an acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," Blix said. Iraq has not yet answered questions that were raised about omissions in its Dec. 7 declaration, which was supposed to have been a full listing of the country's weapons stockpiles and facilities. These questions concern the fate of several tons of VX nerve gas, some anthrax growth, a mustard gas precursor, 6,000 chemical rockets, and so forth. The Iraqis say all these deadly weapons have been destroyed, but Blix said he needs to see the proof—surely there must be documents in one agency or another—and the Iraqis haven't supplied it. By the terms of Resolution 1441, any false statements or omissions in this Iraqi declaration constitute a "material breach"; any further material breach must lead to "serious consequences." Hence, President Bush would seem to have his casus belli.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponSo, why the near universal double-talk that followed Blix's tough briefing? Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the French ambassador to the United Nations and, this month, president of the Security Council, commented that, yes, we need more active cooperation from Iraq, but we also need more time—"several weeks," maybe "a few months"—for the inspection process to take hold. Gunter Pleuger, the German ambassador (to whom the council's presidency rotates next month), said, in a particularly vigorous tone, that our goal must be to "fully disarm Iraq," then added that he hoped this could be done peacefully. "We have just sharpened the tools of inspection," he noted, and so we should keep it going. Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, legitimized this line of thinking. The inspectors haven't yet found evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear program. "Our work is steadily progressing," he said, "and should be allowed to run its natural course."
There are two ways to view these evasions: 1) as a cynical illustration of the United Nations' irresponsibility; 2) as a realistic expression of the fact that a failing grade doesn't make Iraq an immediate candidate for invasion. Both views are correct, as far as they go. As for the first, it probably is true, as the hawks feared all along, that sending in the inspectors was a ruse to avoid sending in the Marines. As long as inspectors were on the case, there would—there could—be no war (unless, of course, they somehow really managed to find something). How long can an inspection "run its natural course"? For as long as there remains something to inspect, which is to say forever. For many inspection advocates, this was the idea. (It also helps explain why Secretary of State Colin Powell backed away from inspections so radically over the weekend, even going so far as to say, "Inspections will never work." Once the French and the Germans let their hidden agenda out of the bag—that inspections were an alternative to war and a fairly permanent one, at that—Powell, already suspected as a closet dove by his Bush administration colleagues, had to disavow not only French and German pacifism but the whole package. To retain his power and credibility, he had to become, at least within the context of the current debate, more hawkish than the hawks.)
On the other hand (and here we get to the second way to view the evasion), the pro-inspection faction has a point. Is the United Nations really going to authorize war merely because Iraq has violated a U.N. resolution? Has this been the grounds for any war in the past? Should it be the grounds for any war in the future? It's one thing to go to war in order to reverse a violation of the U.N. Charter, as for example the Security Council authorized in 1991 after Iraq invaded Kuwait. But in order to punish an omission—even a serious omission—in a U.N.-ordered declaration? The United Nations doesn't take itself—nor does it deserve to be taken—that seriously. Put it this way: If there were no U.N. Charter, there still would have been just cause to declare war on Iraq for invading Kuwait. If there were no U.N. Resolution 1441, nobody would think for an instant of declaring war on Iraq for not fully itemizing its weapons stockpiles.
This has been said before, but Blix's testimony today makes the point more valid and urgent, not less so: If President Bush has information that substantively justifies going to war against Iraq (and he may, he may), then it's time to come out with it.
Lithwick Reports From the Supreme Court Hearing on Giving Juveniles Life Without Parole
Mad Men: Will Sally Draper Ever Forgive Her Father?
The Weirdly Sexual New Ad for Halls Lozenges
Central Europe Has Really Been on a Hot Streak Since the Berlin Wall Fell
It's a Bad Idea for the Government To Cap Malpractice Awards
How Many Times Can Someone Fire a Pistol in Seven Minutes?
Remarks From The Fray:
Two responses:
First, Kaplan is right that "failure to itemize weapons stockpiles" is not, standing alone, cause for war. Instead, Iraq's failure to comply with the UN disarmament resolution means that:
- Iraq may now be assumed, for all practical purposes to have weapons of mass destruction.
- Iraq may now be assumed to be intentionally lying to the UN.
To those two premises, add that Iraq is a nightmarish totalitarian state; that Saddam Hussein has known territorial ambitions; that Saddam Hussein is known to sponsor terrorism; and that he's violating the terms of an existing cease fire.
That may or may not be enough for war, but it's a heck of a lot more than "he hasn't itemized his weapons stockpiles." I haven't either, but I don't have a known stockpile of anthrax, mustard gas, nerve gas, and a history of using them. You can bet that if I did, Bush would be coming after me.
Second, Kaplan should at least admit that there's an alternate way of looking at this. We aren't looking for grounds for war - we're at war. In 1991, as a condition of getting a cease fire, Saddam agreed to disarm completely with regard to WMD, and to prove it. We know that he never did. We gave him one last chance to prove it, and he has openly lied to us. Ergo, the problem isn't that he "hasn't itemized his weapons stockpiles," it's that he has been violating his ceasefire promise since the day he made it, and he blew off his last chance. Again, you can argue about whether a war is in our interest, or in the UN's, but don't softpedal what Hussein has done.
-- J_Mann
(To reply, click here.)
I must say, I don't recognize Hitchens from his pre-road-to-Tarsus days. He often seemed sharp then, but perhaps when you generally agree with someone you overlook his deficiencies. Or perhaps his arguments are more strained now as he grows into his new ideology. Or maybe he's just trying to stir up trouble in the Fray. Of which I certainly approve.
But this article is so utterly foolish, that it doesn't even work on that score. When people called Reagan a cowboy, way back in medieval times, was it--"boiled down"--just an insult against Texans? Could it be that people think bush a cowboy because, in the wake of 9-11, he actively embraced the notion?
September 18, 2001
President Bush said the United States wanted terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," comparing efforts to hunt down the "evil-doers" to old-time manhunts in Texas.
"I want justice," Bush said when asked by reporters if he wanted bin Laden killed in retaliation for terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
Pressed to elaborate on what he meant by those comments, Bush said: "All I'm doing is remembering. When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the Old West a wanted poster. It said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
Maybe he really was born in Amarillo circa 1868. Or maybe Hitchens should quit whining. At the very least it would seem that the cows are not just mooing at traffic.
But what really makes me shake my head here is the boast that Bush rejoined UNESCO. Of course, what really happened was that Jesse Helms (who had been blocking the move ever since the Reagan Administration handed off in 1989) retired. UNESCO has been unexceptionable, on everybody's ledger but Jesse's and the Black Helicopter people's, since the Cold War ended.
-- Rosenkreutz
(To reply, click here.)
There are other problems with UNMOVIC itself. For over a month, there has been concern expressed that the inspectors have been penetrated and compromised by Iraqi agents, via bribes and blackmail. Dr. Wolfowitz in his speech on Thursday alluded to multiple intelligence sources which strongly suggest that this is the case. Wolfowitz also described unsurprising evidence that Saddam has ordered that any scientist(and/or members of his/her family) who cooperates with the inspections will be killed, basically quashing any hopes of obtaining useful information from them. And anyone who saw the videotape of that poor young Iraqi man, clutching lined notepaper, briefly jumping into the UNMOVIC car in Baghdad, could understand why no Iraqi scientist would trust the UNMOVIC regime. Shouting "Save me, save me", the sad creature was summarily dragged back out of the car by Iraqi policemen, while the lumpy UNMOVIC inspector did absolutely nothing to retain him for interview and possible asylum. Disgraceful! Who can doubt what will happen(has already happened) to this courageous man, callously ignored by the UNMOVIC representative in his desperate moment clutching for freedom and possibly offering to help unmask violations by the Saddam regime?
Over the past 3 weeks or so, Marc Ginsberg, former US Ambassador to Morrocco, has suggested a simple, straightforward, cut-to-the-chase, efficient plan to deal with the Iraq UNMOVIC stalemate. The Ginsberg Plan, at least as I interpret his comments, would call for the UNMOVIC inspectors to evacuate Iraq forthwith. Iraq would then be given "one last chance" to provide clear, credible evidence of the wherebouts and disposition of the above-noted WMD stocks. If Iraq could or would not then fully explain and document the whereabouts or disposition of the missing agents satisfactorily, the regime would be declared in material breach. The lack of compliance would be causus belli for military force to enforce the UN Resolution, and forcibly remove the Saddam threat to the international community.
-- Abre_los_ojos
(To reply, click here.)
(1/28)