Yes, they destroyed a lot of weapons, but the inspections didn’t really work. Iraq was able to continue amassing WMDs. Furthermore, Iraq became less and less cooperative over time.
This mantra is hard to take seriously: Yes, Iraq has been in violation of their treaty obligation for 12 years and we’ve done nothing. Yes, they’ve ignored 17 UNSC resolutions and we’ve done nothing. Yes, they’ve built an enormous stockpile of WMDs and we’ve done nothing. But, the very next infraction they commit, the world is really gonna let them have it.! Suurrre…
Saddam wouldn’t believe this, and neither would I. If we allow Saddam to ignore the current UN resolutions without any consequences, then we will never attack Iraq.
Well in 1998 Iraq was almost certainly had a lot less weapons than in 1991 and in particular its nuclear facilities were largely gone. IMO that is a reasonable achievement.
After the Gulf war it was found that Iraq was only two years away from building nuclear weapons ie. they were going to build them in 1993. Now even after ten years Iraq still isn’t close to building nuclear weapons. So inspections have proved highly successful in preventing Saddam from acquring nukes.
As for your other point like I said there has never previously been such an explicit threat of invasion. And actually it doesn’t much matter if Saddam doesn’t believe the threat. Then there will be a war. The point is that the US will have much more international support going into a war and it will be viewed as being much more legitimate.
I guess “reasonable achievement” is the key difference of opinion. Germany and France and others, I guess most people opposed to the war think that inspections have achieved something, and the opposing side does not. I think they could (and that is based on Blix’s 2/14 report) but the necessary level of cooperation from Iraq hasn’t been forthcoming and won’t be any time soon.
I’m underwhelmed by the French version of diplomacy. Posturing oneself in direct opposition to the US before hearing the case made, plus chastizing various countries that go along…and as a misbehaving group…I don’t think that’s much of an improvement, so I’m not feeling too bad about it myself.
I guess the question now would be the methodology for setting and enforcing the rigorous objective standard.
Who would set the rigorous standard? Or would the standard be 1441?
What entity - and under whose auspices - would determine if Iraq had met the standard?
How can we ensure the integrity of the entity - after all - his decision determines war and peace?
If - in a year - the entity determines Iraq isn’t cooperating 100 percent (which is what Blix is reporting about Iraq now, although sometimes he says Iraq is “taking steps in the right direction”), will the US/UK get a guarantee - and I mean an explicit guarantee (not a tacit one, which offers an plausible out) - to support IMMEDIATE military action to oust Saddam and support subsequent rebuilding efforts in Iraq?
Will the UN’s member countries help foot the bill to keep the invasion force nearby to enforce the inspections (sorry, Cyber, but I’m still not buying the notion that inspections will really work without a massive invasion force - Saddam’s ability and willingness to not cooperate with inspectors in 1998 proves inspections are toothless without the troops nearby.)
I guess my point here is that if the US is willing to listen to world opinion, not invade, give peace/inspections a chance, and overlook the 17 violations of UN resolutions, then the standards for inspections better be airtight and favorable to the U.S.
IMHO, if we went this route, the UN owes this to the world (and especially the U.S./U.K. for finally giving teeth to the resolutions). The timetable is a year - and that’s non-negotiable. If Saddam farts wrong, we have the go-ahead from the UN to invade.
I think the issue is too complicated and important to have clear-cut standards and one independent body to make the decision. What if Saddam co-operates 95%? Is the 5% worth going to war?Ultimately the US will have to make the call though with the help of UN inspectors to report the facts. I think however that other countries can pledge now that they won’t oppose the US if after a year the inspectors don’t report full co-operation.
BTW one important requirement is that the US make it explicit that it won’t invade if Saddam disarms completely. It has never done this AFAIK . Saddam probably suspects that the US will attack him regardless of what he does which means he doesn’t have any incentive to disarm.
Saddam co-operates 100 percent or war - that’s the deal. That’s non-negotiable. He’s supposed to be cooperating 100% anyway. One final chance to cooperate fully (as in South Africa-style) or else. Otherwise, I’m with those who say the UN becomes irrelevant.
Didn’t France, Germany and Belgium say to Saddam “One Final chance” as part of last week’s EU group statement?). If the U.S. is willing to overlook 17 SC violations by Saddam and hope that No. 18 is the charm (and live with the inherent risks to U.S. security - sorry if I feel less safe with Saddam in power than I do with him gone), the U.S. is entitled to expect UNWAVERING UN support for military action next year if Saddam as much as bats an eye in the wrong way. The U.S. should also expect a hell of a lot of world support for helping Iraq on the road to decency.
And after all, Saddam is supposed to be cooperating 100 percent RIGHT NOW, and according to Blix, he is not. 1441 calls for “serious consequences” RIGHT NOW should Saddam not cooperate 100 percent. If “serious consequences” don’t mean war, I’d sure like the U.N. to tell me what the term really means.
By adopting muscular inspections, you’re asking the U.S. to live with Saddam for at least another year. You know the U.S., Israel, and the U.K. - and probably NOT France or Germany - are who Saddam really wants to hurt - if he can get away with it. Remember that the “5%” violation you’re referring to means that Saddam retains the ability to create an fairly intolerable amount of mischief.
As far as the clear-cut standards, they should be the standards set by the U.S./U.K. They can come under UN auspices, but the standards would be the ones WE’RE comfortable with. The inspectors would be the ones WE’RE comfortable with.
I can live with that for ONE YEAR ONLY, and this must be made explicit in the second UN resolution that calls for “muscular inspections.” Saddam now has all the incentive in the world to disarm if he wants to remain in power, and he knows he has one year to do it to our satisfaction, or else. Like I said, if his farts stink in the slightest, he is a dead man.
I’m astonished that ANYONE could suggest that either the initial inspections or these dubious ones led by Blix could be said to be effective. There were MANY Iraqi installations (ie Saddam’s “palaces”) which were off-limits to inspectors and which were very likely used for the production of chemical, biological and, potentially, nuclear weaponry. We know that they have produced rockets which exceeded the maximum permissible range. We also know that Iraq has NEVER fully complied with any UN resolution or agreement whatsoever.
What on EARTH are we waiting for? We don’t need Germany’s, or France’s, or any other nation’s approval - the simple fact is that Iraq has blatantly disregarded the agreement which ended the 1991 Gulf War and as such is subject, at any time, to the immediate resumption of hostilities.
I don’t quite understand why the peaceniks among us would prefer to see Hussein actually USE WMD again (remember that little fandangle with Iran? How about his use of them against the Kurds?) before you allow that the regime in Iraq absolutely must be removed and a new, peaceable and moderate government installed.
Maybe this is all an elaborate Good Cop/Bad Cop scenario?
The US and most of Europe gear up for war (or make it look like they are) while a minority of nations from Europe who showed some sympathy for Iraq’s plight are pleading for Saddam to cooperate.
Since the “Good Cop” routine isnt showing any signs of real success, I’m looking forward to the “Bad Cop” routine in 3 weeks. Hope some lets Bush know that this is all supposed to be an act.