jttmab,
Thanks for the reply. I think I see your position: The US had no authority and no justification for invading Iraq. With 20-20 hindsight, we now know that Iraq was actively destroying its stockpiles of chemical weapons before the start of the renewed hostilities, and so the WH made a tactical blunder by using WMD as justification. From the overall context of both Hawk’s and your posts, all this pivots around SCR1441:
1441 was closer to a court order to comply than it is international law. The basis for the resolution was the violation of the treaty that Iraq had agreed to. But 1441 did not specifically authorize military action.
I agree with these statements in your earlier post, and I would conjecture that, in principle, Hawk would as well -- but I’ve been wrong before. However, I think that Hawk would argue that 1441, without a credible threat of force to ensure compliance, the resolution becomes no more than a “wish-list” from the UN. As we know, the subsequent resolution for the express use of force never materialized.
Many moons ago, I watched an interview of President Bush well before the invasion. He was asked about Saddam Hussein’s actions with respect to troop movements and terrorist affiliations and what he might do about it. He smirked, nodded his head, and replied very simply “regime change” and then nodded some more. That singular moment told me everything I would see after that. After this, I could see the facile logic of “tax cuts” to improve the economy, “faith-based initiatives” to replace expensive welfare programs, and “regime changes” to topple evil-empires and unhinge axes-of-evil.
I believe that Hawk has used 1441 as the legal authority and justification for the invasion of Iraq…1441 is the only "justification" that the US can hang their hats for the invasion of Iraq.
As I’m writing this post, I see that Hawk is asking you
“to find within UNSC 1441 that the UNSC must reconvene to authorize the use of military force as a component of the response authorized under the "all necessary means" context originally provided for in 678.”
So Hawk wants you to prove that 1441 is no more than a wish-list. He’s getting closer, but he hasn’t quite stated that it provides all the justification the US needed. I would like for the discussion to revolve around what was the intent of this resolution. I do think that the UN wanted to rule out invasion as a means of getting Saddam to comply with 1441. After all, that’s their charter: get compliance without going to war. I can easily understand the SC’s reluctance allow the use of force if Saddam continued his defiant stance toward inspectors. They saw GWB Jr. as a kid in his hotrod, sitting at the starting light of his race, waiting to pop his clutch (invade) the nanosecond after he sees green. Then, someone comes along and tells him that he’ll have to wait another day because the race has been called off. FTS, he’s racin’! And here we are.
Saddam destroyed his weapons and was trying to play a game where people would think he still had them even though he didn't.
I absolutely agree; when I first heard this theory, it seemed to fit all the evidence, and so I readily accepted it as a working hypothesis. IMO, this was a tactical blunder on Saddam’s part. With proper calculation, he would have documented every step by the inspectors and allow the world to watch, and also allowed non-US personnel (French?) to inspect their more sensitive areas. If Saddam had the appearance of “full cooperation” with respect to 1441, he might have justifiably cried foul when the US invaded.
The French were interested in "Where's your proof that Iraq does have WMD." and every bit of Intel that the US passed to the UN turned up as a dry hole.
Given this, they could have played the role of a spoiler if they hadn’t already denigrated Bush’s FP reputation or intelligence. In earlier posts, I mentioned that the US can’t afford to be the world’s “cop” and that there are lots of evil people in the world. When we decided to interfere with the business of a bad guy, I would hope that we would start and the top and work our way down a short list.
Condie Rice sees 1000 tactical errors? I see lots of strategic errors as well, mostly due to a myopic view of the world, laced with arrogance, and a complete and utter lack of understanding of the cultural differences between white-bread Christianity and ME Islamic mindsets.
I concern myself more with US hypocrisy than I do with other country's hypocrisy.
I concern myself with the overly liberal use of the terms ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘hypocrite.’ It seems like unhelpful expectorant to me.
I'm not sure that I've adequately addressed all your questions.
You have gone along way to help me understand your position. Thank you.
Re: Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon program.
Another post for another time. |
