This is the prediction of Ken Adelman, deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and arms control director under President Reagan. His reasons include the relatively small number of inspectors and Saddam’s skill at hiding WMDs. Adelman’s distrubing thoughts give rise to a number of questions:[ol][]Is Adelman right?[]If Blix doesn’t find the WMDs that we believe exist what should be done? []If Blix doesn’t find the WMDs, what will be done?[]Suppose the inspections go on for some time inconclusively. How long should the US wait? How long will they wait? [/ol]
Well considering the vast quantities of weapons that the inspectors managed to find last time I would like some actual evidence that Saddam is now capable of hiding them with impuntiy especially since the current inspection regime is a lot tougher. Nuclear faclitlies ,which are the main source of worry, are especially difficult to hide.
Also note that inspectors will be able to make any use of any intelligence that the US has or will acquire. So we are talking about inspections combined with intelligence. It’s hard to see why this couldn’t but be better than intelligence alone without inspections.
As to what will happen if Hans Blix doesn’t give a green light, I seriously doubt the US will attack. If it wanted to ignore all diplomatic constraints it would have done so before. Now after having gone through the UN it would be the height of folly to just toss it aside. It would leave the US horribly isolated and I wonder if even Turkey and Kuwait will give military support without UN cover.
Hmmmm…Apparently there are already people concerned with a lack of willingness from the US to release the informations they gathered via intelligence to the inspection team…we’ll see, I suppose…
Well OK but if the US is unwilling to share its intelligence that would hardly be the fault of the inspectors. And US will hardly be able to be dismiss the inspections process on the basis of intelligence it’s refusing to share.
Adelman misses a key point. The inspectors are going in knowing that WMD already exist in Iraq. I heard Hans Blix on the radio last night, and he said that Iraq’s claim that Iraq has no WMD does not comport with the evidence. He also said that any alleged inability to account for WMD would not fly; rather reasonably, he pointed out that a nation building weapons of mass destruction keeps records of what was built and where it is.
IOW, if the inspections fail, the only explanation is that Iraq is in “material breach.” So either success or failure of the inspectors results in the disarmament of Iraq; if successful, the disarmament occurs peacefully, if a failure, the disarmament will occur by force.
Sua
CyberPundit, you misunderstand Iraq’s obligations under the inspection resolution. It is not to cooperate with the inspections - it is to disarm. It is not the U.S.'s, or anyone else’s, obligation to point out where the WMD; it is Saddam’s.
So yes, if the U.S. doesn’t provide intelligence information, it cannot blame the inspectors if they don’t find the WMD. But it still can blame Saddam.
Sua
-
The small numbers of inspectors don’t matter very much, IMO. The inspectors don’t need to find out all the details of every single covert weapons program that may exist in Iraq, simply that one or more programs exist and that Iraq has lied about them. Adelman gives the impression his mind was already made up about the need for ‘regime change’ in Iraq, and that the US already should have invaded by now. IMO, no level of inspection would satisfy Mr. Adelman.
-
If no evidence of WMD is found by the January deadline, the US should stand down on Iraq.
-
If no WMD are found, the US will likely invade anyway, on the pretext of some sort of ‘material breach’ of the recent UN resolution on Iraq.
-
The UN inspection, AFAIK, are not intended to go on eternally; there are clear deadlines for reporting by both Iraq and the inspectors. As stated above, if no WMD are found by January, the US should stand down. Chances are slim that such a stand-down will occur, however.
Nit: AFAIK, it is not up to the weapons inspectors to give the US a ‘green light’ to invade, only to report on the progress of their mission. The administration has given clear signals that it may use the military option regardless of the ultimate findings by the inspection teams.
Sua Sponte:
I think the point is what happens if the inspectors declare that Iraq is not in material breach. Can the US just dismiss the inspections process on the basis of intelligence it doesn’t share? I don’t think so.
BTW I think it would be a mistake to think of a monolithic US government itching for war no matter what. That may describe the civilians at the Pentagon but I get the impression that the State Department, CIA and maybe the professional military are more skeptical of war even now.
I seem to recall that the US considers attacks upon US and British planes to constitute a ‘material breach’ and Iraq does this on a regular basis. At least, I remember that being kicked around while the UN negotitations were going on for this resolution. Even if it is not actually a part of the resolution or if the resolution can’t be stretched to accomodate that viewpoint I imagine it is at least one option the US may use to stand on to launch an attack. In fairness I would think that shooting at someone else’s planes counts towards fighting back but that’s just my opinion.
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the US had retreated from the firing-back=material breach argument. Of course the US may try to invent some flimsy pretext and go to war even without any support from Blix or the UNSC but the point is that it will come at a very high diplomatic cost. If it wanted to pay that diplomatic cost it would have likely ignored the UNSC completely.
Doesn’t matter, admitsPerle. There’s gonna be some military action no matter what, using either the evidence or the lack of it as a basis. If the UN teams are unable to find evidence, that will simply prove that Saddam has hidden it, per that line of reasoning.
But it isn’t Blix’s call; it’s the Security Council’s.
I don’t think this is a small point. The Security Council resolution does not authorize the use of force, though the Bush administration is trying to create this impression by misquoting the resolution. The resolution states that Iraq will face “severe consequences” for violations, language that was a compromise and was not intended to authorize an attack. Bush and his people have repeatedly said that Iraq will face “the most severe consequences,” language that implies the use of force and is not found in the resolution. Any attack without Security Council authorization would be illegal.
I regret I see little evidence that Mr. Bush has the slightest intention of being stalled, much less stopped. As to matters of “legality”? Legality is for wussies. Mr. Bush has repeatedly made it clear that the UN has an invitation to join the American coalition. Period.
Mr. Perle’s comments, as linked by Elvis, are very telling. I don’t know why, perzackly, but I was surprised, I never expected him to state the matter so baldly. Perhaps its because he considers it a done deal, the war is going to happen.
I agree that it’s not up to the inspectors whether or not to give the go ahead to attack, they can only state whether or not Iraq is in that nebulous “material breach”. The question, then, is will the inspectors ever admit to Iraq being in material breach, knowing that this will likely trigger an attack? Certainly, I think if they trip over a nuke with “New York or bust” on it, they’ll declare Iraq to be in breach. But what if Iraq simply uses it’s trademark stalling tactics, under some bogus claim or another? “Oh, you can’t go in THERE today, it’s a sacred holiday. Come back a week from Tuesday.” How much of this will the inspectors put up with before they call Saddam on it?
Jeff
Since when do we need approval?
No, it’s also not up to the inspection team to determine whether Iraq has materially breached its obligations. That’s an interpretation of the treaty; the inspection team is meant to simply report facts. But that’s getting nitpicky.
elucidator: Whether or not Bush gets permission does not seem to be a deal-breaker for him, but that does not mean that it doesn’t matter to him. Why did they work so hard to get a more favorable resolution? Why are they going through the motions of weapons inspections? Also, I’m wondering who this “coalition” is. IMO, it’s a little much to call the likely support of the UK a coalition.
A plausible scenario http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1636
chula, well, yes, of course it matters. But not that much. We should remember that the political faction that Our Leader calls home has consistently sought to undermine the UN, except for those occassions when it is convenient. Yes, the Bushistas would be quite pleased if the UN stood as one and shouted thier solidarity with US goals. That would be nice.
What the UN appears to these weary eyes to be doing is to attempt to get some kind of control. They are going to operate as though the inspections are central to the issue, and hope that time will offer some resolution other than war. Slowing down a potential catastrophe isn’t as good as averting it, but sometimes it will just have to do.
The wild card is the Unthinkable: that Saddam does, in fact, fully comply. He hands over everything, lets them look everywhere. Why shouldn’t he? None of these weapons are irreplaceable, he can make more vats of botulism and anthrax whenever.
It would be the smartest move he could make. He comes out a defamed innocent, the US looks not only belligerant, but foolishly so. And he gives up nothing he can’t get back as soon as the inspectors board the airplane home.
Suppose some people who want to get even with SADDAM kill a few inspectors. That will be the trigger. No excuse will be accepted. We will have a war when we want it.
News Update:
Iraq admits plan to use chemical weapons
"IRAQ has given its first warning to the West that it does possess weapons of mass destruction and that President Saddam Hussein would be prepared to use them if his regime was threatened.
"The remarks were a complete contradiction of the official Iraqi position. Baghdad has insisted repeatedly that it no longer has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons nor medium-range missiles.
“Speaking in an interview with al-Quds al-Arabi, a London-based Arabic newspaper, an unnamed senior Iraqi official said that Iraq had used chemical weapons during the war with Iran and would use them again if necessary.”
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-495141,00.html
Now, how does this news report change the the UN inspectors approach, and for that matter, Bush’s headlong pursuit to engage Saddam on the battlefield?