Bush had strong words last night for Iraq… words that made me worry that he’d be declaring war sooner rather than later. However, today Iraq accepted the UN resolution, two days before the deadline for them to do so. This despite the criticism they had for the resolution on Monday.
Obviously, I don’t think Iraq’s acceptance will silence those beating the drums of war here in the US. However, doesn’t this change the landscape quite a bit? Barring an act of overt aggression or defiance from Iraq, aren’t we now obligated to at least wait and see whether Iraq abides by the terms of the agreement?
It makes sense to me that this now becomes somewhat of a cooling-off period, wherein both sides have to back down as a show of good faith. For US officials to continue the hawkish rhetoric they’ve been engaging in would be disingenuous to the spirit of the agreement, and would hamper (at the very least) its chances of success, and would further decrease the international community’s view of US foreign policy. Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that international politics haven’t “made sense,” but I’m hoping that this time it will.
I don’t really know if this is a “Great Debate” or not, but I feel the need to post the questions: Isn’t it incumbent on the United States now to uphold their end of the deal and allow the inspections to take place before taking action, just as it is Iraq’s responsibility to allow the UN inspectors in? Can we quiet the talk of war now?
Political vagaries aside for a moment, I hope so. I really hope so.
I welcome other opinions on what this acceptance does to the current state of affairs in Iraq. Am I making too much of it?
I think so. These sorts of pissing contests among politicians have gone on for thousands of years. Saddam will do his usual cheat and retreat. Bush will respond with war. Enjoy.
Of course. But the thinking is that there is no way that Saddam will - or possibly even can - live up to the terms of unfettered access. So it is only a matter of time before he declares something to be off-limits, or the inspectors to be spies etc. etc. And then the war goes on.
Presumably, what Saddam is thinking is that the best thing for the time being is to stall it out, to give him more time to prepare for the war, and the hope that something will change in the interum. And who knows - he may be right.
According to the radio report, the Iraqi letter said there were no WMDs for Iraq to identify. According to all other sources, this is a lie. Since the resolution requires Iraq to divulge all their WMDs by 12/8, as soon as the inspectors find a single non-divulged WMD, Iraq would be in material breach, I guess.
Pardon me from being predictable for a moment, but since this is GD… cite, please? “All other sources”? I have yet to see one confirmed source that proves conclusively that Iraq has any active weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps you are privy to information the rest of the country is not? If so, I’d love to see it.
Libertarian and IzzyR… yeah, that’s pretty much what I figured. The practical side of me says that war is almost inevitable with the verbal “pissing contests” we’ve seen so far. The idealist in me likes to find hope in anything, though… and to him, today seemed like a step in the right direction.
Who says the U.S. isn’t going to do so? Of course the U.S. is going to let the inspections run their course. It is in the U.S.'s best interests to do so.
Yeah, you probably are, on several levels. First of all, the acceptance meant nothing from a legal perspective. Once the UN Security Council passed the resolution - pursuant to its compulsory Article VII powers - Iraq had to accept it; it was international law, period. Giving Iraq seven days to accept it was really just “in seven days we will authorize an invasion unless you say you will comply.”
Is it? I’ve looked through those reports before, and I see no declarations of certainity that there are WMD currently in Iraq. They discuss Iraq’s prior problems and capabilities, and raise many questions about what their current capabilities are. Unfortunately, none of those questions seem to be answered with certainty in its pages. Perhaps you’re thinking of likelihoods? I’d agree that this document makes it likely that Iraq has some unknown capacity for WMD, but I tend to hold conclusive proof to a higher standard than “likely.”
My problem was with december’s assertion that “all other sources” say that Iraq is lying about WMD, when even the UNSCOM report can’t say conclusively one way or the other. I wonder where he gets his information.
Mind you, I think Iraq probably is being deceptive on some level, and as I said, the practical part of me says that they will probably using this acceptance as a delay tactic. However, my question is more related to how the US should proceed at this point: Do we risk war on the likelihood that they’re lying when there is a chance that they’re not?
I agree with you that it’s in the US’ best interests to let the inspections run their course before taking military action. However, given the hawkish stance of many of our current officials, I’m concerned that some of them do not share that opinion. I know that Powell does… I’m not so sure about Bush or Cheney or others. Their prior statements suggest otherwise.
Just to put a twist in the OP. As there is now a ratified UN resolution in respect of this issue, when Iraq is found to be in material breach (which seems almost inevitable), is it encumbent on the US to refrain from undertaking any unilateral action to redress that breach? And is it likely that Bush will be content to let the UN decide the timing and the nature of Iraq’s punishment for any confirmed breach?
I predict again… inspections will proceed, no weapons will be found, and we will be reminded that it isn’t possible to search every square foot of Iraq, but we know through soopersecret intelligence that he does in fact have WMD’s and we’re going after him anyway.
Bush is going to get his war, because you can’t prove a negative.
Well, the wording of the resolution said, in a nutshell, “If there’s a material breach, all bets are off”. When - er, I mean “if”, of course - there’s a breach, will Bush consult the UN to decide what action should be taken? I seriously doubt it. The second Saddam uses his trademark stalling tactics, I expect to see a FAE bomb knocking on his door.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t prior inspections turning up WMDs, or evidence thereof, right and left? That being the case, I doubt it’ll be too long before the new team finds something concrete, thus placing Saddam in that much-vaunted “material breach”. The only question is whether or not Hans Blix will be honest about how compliant Saddam is being, knowing that noncompliance will lead directly to war, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dinars.
Jeff
I’m not sure whether these are accurate reports, but certainly on our news this morning it was reported that the US intended to hand over its intelligence information regarding Iraq’s (and especially that gained by satellite) to the UN weapons inspectors.
I actually think that the proposal by Saddam’s son that there should be a couple of observers from Arab nations allowed to join the team is a sound one, given the current geopolitical situation and the horrendous consequences for all in the region should war ensue.
To second ElJeffe’s post, I recall having heard that the inspection idea is to use the results of the previous inspections. and to ask the Iraqis to document all the known weapons and material. This might be hard.
I also think this is a good idea IF you could get truly neutral Arab inspectors. The downside is if those inspectors are somewhat symphathetic to Iraq. They could then be used by the Iraqis, to agree with some of their demands - this would undercut the inspection team and have the exact opposite effect than was intended.
Seems to me that if Iraq has WMD, they need to let them be found.
But if they <b>don’t</b> have any WMD anymore. If the used them up, or destroyed them, or scavenged them for parts to build other things, etc. Then they need to <i>make some right quick</i>.
Otherwise, if the inspectors don’t find anything, they are going to assume that Iraq successfully pulled the wool over their eyes and declare them to be in material breach.
Sort of like in the movies when the bad guys beat the good guy to get information out of him that he doesn’t have.
UNESCO has a pretty good idea of what they had 10 years ago. And what it destroyed personally. But it’s damned unlikely that what Iraq currently has is exactly equal to UNESCO’s original estimated minus the confirmed destroyed stuff.
I adopt the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when determining conclusiveness. Here, we have an admission from Iraq that it had, for example, X amount of chemical weapons. The Iraqis failed to account for all those weapons. Therefore, Iraq failed to rebut the presumption that it has those chemical weapons.
In the Andersen/Enron case, it was impossible to demonstrate that the destroyed files were material to the investigation - they were destroyed, after all. But Andersen was found guilty of obstructing justice - they had destroyed files and were unable to demonstrate that the destroyed files were immaterial.
If it’s good enough for our legal system, it’s good enough for me.
Bush is going to war. Hanz Glick will find he cant get into one area or another. All it will take is one restricted palace, then theyll be over Iraq like white on rice.