I saw this in a FAIR mailing, but despite their anti-war bias, it seems to check out. Most news outlets have been reporting headlines like this: “President Tells Hussein to Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours or Face Invasion”
But, on closer inspection, Bush’s ultimatum wasn’t any sort of ultimatum for invasion at all: if you actually look at Bush’s speech and Powell’s recent comments (as well as the usual “administration sources” quoted anonymously), it turns out that U.S. troops were going to invade whether Saddam left or not, and whether Iraqis fought back or not. All Bush was really saying was that to avoid “conflict,” Iraq shouldn’t fight back when we invade (well duh).
Colin Powell on March 17: “the only way for Iraq to avoid an attack is for Mr. Hussein to leave the country and allow this matter to be resolved through the peaceful entry of force.”
Powell seems to be using “attack” in the sense that “our invasion is only an attack if you fight back.” That would be okay if people caught on to the “entry of force” part: but for some reason few news outlets HAVE caught on. The last two days of high drama seem a little silly in light of this.
Bush’s original big speech contained the line “It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.” Most news agencies read this statement as a refference to what would happen IF Saddam didn’t leave: but looking back, that’s not what’s actually said: it’s just placed in a context where people are likely assume it, especially given the language of “48 hours” and “deadline.” The statement that Saddam’s refusal to step down within the deadline “will result in military conflict” is misleading as well, because conflict here is being defined strictly as what happens ONLY if Iraqis fight back (as per Saddam’s wishes): it does not mean that there is any way to avoid the military invasion.
So this all means that the 48 deadline is essentially meaningless when framed (as it constantly is) as the “time remaining” for someone in Iraq to do something to prevent INVASION. It’s a compelling element of news drama, but it’s misleading nonsense.
And it really puts the lie to the oft repeated statements “well, its all up to Saddam now.” All that’s up to Saddam is whether he’s going to try to flee the country (which he didn’t ever need an ultimatim to decide was a good idea anyway): we were going to invade no matter what (Saddam’s prescence is simply a major factor in whether that action could potentially be peaceful or not).
Actually, you dont haave to listen very closely to the speech at all. No one is trying to hide or misreport anything. He clearly said he wanted Saddam and his sons to leave so that the US could peacefully enter Iraq so that we can finally disarm them. He was very clear that we are coming, and that Saddaam had 48 hours to get out of the way or face the US military.
The Times front page today: “War Imminent as Hussein Rejects Ultimatum” the story starts: “The White House said today that Saddam Hussein was making his ‘final mistake’ by rejecting an ultimatum ordering him to leave Iraq or face war.”
What’s with the deadline clock on MSNBC? What is the deadline? What Bush technically offered was a period in which Saddam could leave the country before troops entered, and a plea for Iraqis not to attack U.S. troops. Now, “deadline” can be ambiguous (maybe it just means: the time at which we will start the invasion), but most news agencies are using it in the sense that Iraq needs to fulfill some special requirement to avoid the invasion. That’s just not the case.
The only sense in which Iraq can “avoid war” is to not fight back the invasion. But that’s not exactly what “avoiding war” means to most people.
You have to expect a bit of sensationalism from the 24 hours news people. They have to keep you watching while not much is happening.
From the beginning, Bush has said he would enforce resolution 1441. In his speech the other night, he said he would enter Iraq so that we can do just that. We have a mandate from the UN that was approved unanimously, including France, Germany, Russian and China.
As we enter Iraq in order to enforce what the UN decided back in November through 1441, we will destroy Saddam Hussein if he is still there. He was given the ability to leave peacibly, but has chosen not to do so.
I think that there is a good possibility that the Iraqi army will not fight. I think they know their best bet is to let us come in, destroy the weapons and help them with a new government. The sooner Saddam is gone, the sooner the UN imposed trade restrictions will be removed. The average Iraqi should be sharing inthe wealth of the oil that is there and this is a golden opportunity for them.
The UN spoke in resolution 1441. If the Iraqi army chooses to fight while we enforce it, then there will be a war. If they let us come in peacefully, there will not be a war. The choice, as always, is theirs. But either way, we are coming. I dont see how you could have watched the President’s speech and not gotten that.
—I dont see how you could have watched the President’s speech and not gotten that.—
This is mostly about the reporting, not about Bush’s speech. He used ambiguous rhetoric that was picked up and amplified by the media, to the point where they were making statements that are highly misleading.
—We have a mandate from the UN that was approved unanimously, including France, Germany, Russian and China.—
Sorry, but I agree with the view that 1441 doesn’t simply give the U.S. carte blanche authority to invade Iraq to enforce the resolution any way we please. It was to send the issue back to the Security Council, and that was the understanding, as stated by our own ambassador, back when it was passed.
It doesn’t give (IMO) the US carte blanche for anything. necrahser’s post
seems to suggest that the United States is acting to enforce the will of the United Nations. After the diplomatic mess of the last few months, and the failure of the US to get support for its (coalition’s) actions, I can hardly see that the US is enforcing international will.
The point (it seems to me) of R. 1441 was to say: “Look, Iraq, you’re way behind, and some of the international community isn’t pleased with it. Live up to your responsibilities, or the we’ll decide what to do about you. As you know from experience, we have the capacity to impose serious consequences”
My take on it: If Iraq doesn’t appear to be complying with 1441 and the previous resolutions where its responisibilities were laid out, then the international community (ie, the rest of us that have to live with Saddam in the neighborhood), embodied in the Security Council, will get together and decide what to do with him. Depending on what Iraq does, the reaction we decide on might be to congratulate Iraq for co-operation and lift the sanctions, or authorise military force to ensure compliance, or something in between.
The resolution doesn’t speak to me of giving the US the mandate to enforce the will of the international community, especially when the will of the community is still not clear.
The problem: The US seemed bent, from the start on ‘regime change’ and maybe even invading Iraq. And it’s been pushing for this at the UN for months. So, weapons inspections, as the mechanism for verifying Iraq’s compliance, resumed, and were stepped up.
But the Iraqis began to comply… Just a little bit. They let the inspectors go places they wanted to… inch, by inch. Slowly, as pressure from the interational community grew, Iraq became more and more open to the inspections. They certainly weren’t grin-faced and joyous about it, and they ceratinly weren’t making UNMOVIC’s job quick or easy, but they were coming around… slowly. They even started destroying their missiles and such. Again, slowly. A few at a time. Basically, just fast enough to throw some doubt into the minds of the rest of the world as to whether military action was needed.
(Plus, what was the hurry to get rid of the weapons? If the US is going to invade Iraq, those weapons could come in very handy in repelling/slowing down the invasion.)
So, the Security Council had the Americans’ insistence that Iraq had not complied, and American support for military action as a response. They also had seeming compliance from Iraq… they weren’t doing it real willingly, but it seemed to be getting done. And that implied that after a few more weeks or months of inspections, with the credible threat of military action from the Council, Iraqi disarmament might have come about.
It may have been unlikley, it may have been despite Saddam’s desires, but it was possible, and it did seem to be happening, if slowly.
And with this possibility, some members of the Council felt that a call for war was premature. So the inspections continued, but to appease the more ‘hard-line’ members of the council, UNMOVIC was asked to make very frequent updates to the council.
(How Blix could accomplish anything while jetting back and forth between New York and Baghdad every week is beyond me.)
And as I said above, these reports showed, every single time, a slight variation on one theme: “Iraq is slowly becoming more co-operative, and slowly complying with the order to show us if they have anything / what they have / destroy it.” And some council members read this as “He’s being stubborn. Time for force”, while others saw “He’s caving in, at least a bit. Maybe force can wait”.
And by the end, Iraq was even destroying its missiles- strengthening, for the unwillling-to-invade-because-of-possibility-of-peaceful-solution, that there wasn’t yet a need to invade.
The Council, in resolution 1441 (in my view) said “Get your act together, or face our collective will. This may mean serious consequences if you don’t shape up soon.”
The council never came to a decision as to what its will was, and as such, what the consequences would be.
So any ‘will’ that the US is enforcing isn’t that of the international community, since the community, embodied in the UN, hasn’t come to a decision. A lot of them thought peace was worth a chance.
(Of course, once it became clear that the US wasn’t going to relent, the other side got stubborn too, suggesting to the US that they wouldn’t get what they wanted from the council, and causing the US to go alone, witout waiting for the community’s decision… as they had threatened to do all along.)
As for the OP, I’m never sure what Bush & Co’s rhetoric means, but it looked at first like ‘Get out of Iraq in 48 hours of face invasion’. Then, reading this, it occurred to me that it may really have meant ‘We’re coming in, you’ve got 48 hours to save yourself’. Then I thought maybe it was meant to be deliberately vague, to give as much leeway as possible later on.
Then I thought, didn’t Bush say ‘get out in 48 hours, or face military action at a time of our choosing’? I’m not sure…
Describing it as an ultimatum is likewise a little confusing when there’s nothing that can be done to be in compliance with the ultimatum. The conditions of the ultimatum were one to Saddam… but nothing he did would have changed anything about the invasion. The second was that Iraq not to resist U.S. forces… but how could it resist them prior to the end of the ultimatum, prior to their invasion? In one case, we don’t have an ultimatum, and in the second case, the ultimatum isn’t relevant to the 48 hour time period.
I’ve gotta agree with the OP here. As Bush said two nights ago:
If Bush intends to invade even if Saddam & Sons leave in the next two hours, then that’s like saying, “their refusal will result in the sun continuing to rise in the east.” If A=>B and (not A)=>B, then neither A nor not-A results in B; B was going to happen anyway.
If Saddam’s abdication doesn’t at least cause Bush to hold off and give Iraq’s new rulers a chance to fully comply with the UN resolutions, then he would be a liar.
—If A=>B and (not A)=>B, then neither A nor not-A results in B; B was going to happen anyway.—
To be fair, I’m not sure that’s a matter of logic: both A and not A could both legitimately cause B for different reasons. (if I drop this ball as ordered, it will hit the ground, if I don’t drop it, I will then be shot by a sniper, die, and it will hit the ground anyway: but for a different reason).
—If Saddam’s abdication doesn’t at least cause Bush to hold off and give Iraq’s new rulers a chance to fully comply with the UN resolutions, then he would be a liar.—
Maybe. What he could mean is that Saddam’s leaving could make it much less likely that U.S. troops would face hostility, and thus it would be less likely for conflict to happen. Or even that, if Saddam leaves, we wont fire the first shot: we’ll just invade, and only attack if fired upon: but if Saddam remains in power, we’re going to start out by bombing you up first.
Now, none of that was said outright, but it’s a possible meaning. That’s why I’m focusing on the “invasion” part. Bush’s speech may have laid down a legitimate ultimatum for other reasons: but it does NOT seem to be legitimate rhetoric insofar as it relates to a U.S. led military invasion into Iraqi territory: which is how even the anti-war liberal media media outlets seem to be inclined to report it as being.
—Maybe the logic is this: If Saddam leaves, the disarmament of Iraq occurs peacefully. If he doesn’t, then it occurs not-so-peacefully.—
I agree that this is a possiblity (though if it was, it wasn’t being very clearly explained). But, in addition to me simply doubting that U.S. troops would really invade a country in such numbers without at least bombing the domestic armed forces (even fleeing ones, as we did in Gulf I), at the very least, the issue here is “invasion” not “peacefully/non-peacefully.”