The UN put explicit limits on what we could or could not do in Iraq.
Do you know the meaning of the term "all necessary means?"
You claim "explicit limits" with such certainty, but you still can't produce them.
The limiting factors were a lack of American voter appetite for a potentially drawn out and bloody battle and limited coalition support for a total defeat of Saddam, not international law or UN prohibitions. In other words, it was a purely political decision, not a legal issue.
Today, OTOH, is a different story. Two possible grounds for attacking Iraq now are 1) violation of the 1991 cease fire terms, which has been the basis for periodic US and British attacks since then, or 2) a new aggressive threat, which would be the basis for attacking in self-defense. So far, while Iraq is clearly in violation of the cease fire, too many of our friends in the region and the world do not yet see the violations as justifying all out war and want to make one more attempt at peacefully disarming Iraq. Based on developments over the last few days, it appears Saddam will get such a chance, though it remains to be seen how tight the standards for compliance will be and whether the Sec. Council will be willing to take the next step if/when the time comes. Making the second case is obviously tougher as conspiring with, financing or supplying terrorists is not easy to prove. Not "prove" as in "beyond a reasonable doubt," mind you - the burden of proof is not that of a criminal prosecution in US courts. But we would need to persuade more allies to gain political rather than legal cover.
In any case, the objective is still to render Saddam harmless to the US, the region, and the world. If that can be done without war, that's what Bush will do. Calls for "regime change," including the 1998 Congressional endorsement of the policy, were based on the view he would not disarm voluntarily. Calls for war are based on the same view, compounded and made more urgent by the danger of WMDs getting into terrorist hands. |
