Ritter Speaks on War in Iraq
by Jennifer Chen
Last night, Scott Ritter, former United Nations (U.N.) chief weapons inspector, spoke about the current war with
Iraq to a packed audience in the Statler Auditorium.
Ritter began his lecture by saying that "this
is a tough time for us all. A nation at war
should never be taken lightly, regardless of
the justifications or lack thereof."
Although he is opposed to the current war
with Iraq, Ritter wanted to make clear that
he is not an antiwar activist. He believes
that "war is sometimes required if that which
you believe is threatened." He felt that if
the United States as a nation, along with its
constitutional ideology, was legitimately
under attack, then a war would be
appropriate and justified.
Ritter placed specific emphasis on the need
for a proper evaluation of how the United
States progressed to its state of current
international crisis and how to best proceed
from there on. He stressed that no matter
what the U.S. does, it will not win this war.
Having served twelve years as a U.N.
marine intelligence officer and having
fought in the Gulf War, Ritter is well-versed
in U.S. military strategies. He used his past
experience to assess the credibility of the
objectives put forth by the Bush
Administration regarding the liberation of
the Iraqi people.
"I know intimately the Iraqi terrain and the
government. The policies that were
advocated by the Bush Administration
define victory as the liberation of Iraq, the
creation of a democratic government in Iraq
and the transformation of the structure of
Middle Eastern government. ... But this
strategy will not work," Ritter said.
Ritter described the Bush Administration's current war plan as the "effects-based strategy" that operates under
four main assumptions: the support of the Iraqi people for the U.S. liberation of their country, the lack of defense
from the Iraqi military, the fragility and the lack of resistance capabilities of the Iraqi government and the support of
the international community.
However, according to Ritter, "none of it worked. ... The CIA was suckered."
As U.S. troops are now finding out, the Iraqi people do not want to be liberated, he said. Ritter stressed that, in
addition to the backfiring of previous assumptions, the strategy of a "shock and awe" approach that attempted to
create the illusion of a great U.S. military force has not proved effective.
"The Iraqi soldiers are not surrendering and are fighting back. Our supply lines have suddenly been cut off. And
now, we're not so invincible as we seemed before. The effects-based strategy no longer works, and now the war
won't be short and fast like it was promised to be when the President signed in approval of it," he said.
Ritter believes that implications of this potentially drawn-out war include a shift toward a more negative attitude in
how other countries will view the U.S. and its people in the years after the war. He says that already, the Iraqi
people will never rally behind U.S. intentions because "they view us as invaders."
Although he foreshadowed tactical victories, Ritter ardently stressed that diplomatic, economic, political and military
triumphs will not result due to the U.S.'s violation of international law. He also said that the United States has
carried out its objectives void of legitimacy and support from the U.N. Security Council.
It has not only violated the U.N. Charter but also the U.S. Constitution, he continued.
"We are therefore asking our men and women to fight for something not supported by the very Constitution that
they have sworn to uphold," he said.
Ritter did not fail to address the fact that the U.S. has managed to gain support from other countries. However, he
called the U.S.-labeled "Coalition of Willing" as a "Coalition of Billing" in reference to the bribery involved. Ritter
believed that both Great Britain and Spain pooled their support because they desired to maintain a special
relationship with the U.S. that will elevate their status and power relative to their European counterparts.
Additionally, the coalition is comprised of many Eastern European nations, which according to Ritter joined
because the U.S. threatened to veto their application to NATO.
Moreover, Ritter drew from his past experience and weapons inspection knowledge to firmly declare that he
believes Iraq does not possess viable nuclear weapons.
"In my experience in Iraq, we have never found any evidence. Given the poor quality of the weapons and their
viability span of about five years, even if they were made in 1998, they would not be functional now," Ritter said.
Furthermore, he described how in order for biological warfare agents such as anthrax to be effective, they must be
in powdered form. Iraq, however, only produced a liquid form of the chemical and did not perfect a method to
transform and stabilize it in another state, he said. In addition, the V-X nerve agents and the artillery shells
required for the proper assemblage of militarily viable chemical weapons need production facilities, which were not
found by U.N. inspectors. He thus concluded that "Iraq does not have chemical weapons" due to the nation's
inability to perfect stabilization techniques for their potential biological warfare agents.
The lecture ended with a standing ovation from the audience, and a question-and-answer session followed.
These questions included one that sought advice from Ritter on how to strategically make individual antiwar
sentiments acknowledged by the government. Ritter replied with an emphasis on the need for a strategic objective
that does not protest against but for a certain cause, namely peace. He also encouraged active citizenship and
exercising the individual right to vote.
"It is too late for stopping the war, but we can change the government that got us into this war," Ritter said. "It is a
dereliction of duty for us to not oppose this with all of our strength if this war is not justified."
Many felt that with American troops currently fighting overseas, Ritter's speech and discussion of war-related
issues was very relevant.
"I thought he was amazing. He came at such an appropriate time. He really addressed the ignorance of the
American people and the bias in the media portrayal of Iraq well," said Elizabeth Paddock '03.
"He was really able to articulate the things that we felt but couldn't express. His military background and
experience make his arguments much more convincing," added Rachel McMichael '03.
Copyright © 2003 by The Cornell Daily Sun, Inc.
###
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: law.cornell.edu.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
© Copyrighted 1997-2003
www.commondreams.org |
