Weapons inspections: guilty, damn guilty, or conflict du jur?

The BBQ Pit
1

OK, bear with me for just a moment. I realize this is going to sound like partisan ranting (assuming I’m even successful at making a case) but I’d ask you to trust that I am far from partisan, and wouldn’t describe myself as anything other than ‘objective.’

Back several years ago, against my own wishes, I became certified as an ISO 9000 lead auditor. I actually rather dislike quality, but my employer wanted a cross-departmental team to work on ISO certification.

It’s about as close as you can come to treating audits and inspections as a science. One of the first things you learn is that the goal is really to verify compliance. It may not be possible, but the idea is that the site gets the benefit of the doubt until they show they don’t deserve it. So why, may I ask you, is the US already talking about what terrible penalties are in store for Iraq even before the inspection is complete?

I was taught that if we find a non-compliance, it was up to us to build support for it with objective evidence. So why, may I ask, do Albright and others claim, “the burden of proof is on Iraq”? The whole ‘guilty until I decide you aren’t innocent’ concept is, well, un-American.

The goal was always to make the site better through the audit. Even if they failed, the idea was to show them how to improve. If Iraq fails, or even if they pass, so I gather, the penalty seems to involve high altitude bombing. It’s The Tiger or the Tiger.

Speaking of which, why, when the results are far from conclusive, is there the impression that war is inevitable?

Why, with a trade gap of US$.5 trillion (4.1% of GDP) is Uncle Sam out looking for trouble?

Why, when the bulk of the NATO allies don’t find the evidence compelling enough to wage war, has the US already reached that conclusion?

If there was a smoking gun, so to speak, I’d be all for some sort of action. But so would a lot of people, I wager.

2

Waverly, have you read Hans Blix’s report? He makes it clear that Saddam is not trying to cooperate. Non-cooperation is a material breach of UN Resolution 1441. Iraq has been evading their obligations for 12 years. Resolution 1441 was a last chance for them to cooperate. They have not done so.

BTW, what makes you think the bulk of the NATO allies don’t find the evidence compelling enough to wage war?

3

I know it is quite outside the intention of the OP, but this statement struck me as extremely odd.

4

Out of context, it is a bit odd.

I was referring to studying and working on quality systems (such as ISO), not stating that I have an affinity for poorly manufactured goods… though I drive a Ford.

5

But it’s essential to playing the part of a martyr, who is harassed into doing something terrible for the benefit of all mankind - be they ever so ungrateful. Remember, Bush, like Sharon, is a Man of Peace, he doesn’t want to go to war :wink:

6

  1. This isn’t an audit. The inspectors are there to verify compliance, not search for the stuff that has been hidden from them. How would you like to conduct an audit by being placed in a huge warehouse full of documents, not told what any of it is or where the important things are, and then asked to certify the company as being in compliance with ISO 9000?

  2. This isn’t an audit. The issues here are not financial solvency, or stock holder reports, or compliance with international standards of weights and measure. The issue is the production of weapons of mass destruction, and the possession of same by a man who has shown a willingness to use them, and who has been known to fund terrorism in the past.

  3. This isn’t an audit. The goal is not to make Iraq better at anything, the goal is to prove to our satisfaction that Iraq is in compliance with its international agreements, and that it no longer has wmds.

And fuck you, since this is the pit :wink:

7

It is, but I think your analogy is flawed. This situation isn’t analogous to accusing someone of a crime, where the burden of proof is on the accuser. Iraq agreed, in 1991, to destroy their WMD and provide proof to the UN that they did so. So the burden of proof was and has been on them the whole time, in accordance with the terms of surrender that they signed. Now, one could argue that it’s not “fair,” since many more civilized nations had a huge fucking army on their front doorstep at the time, but thems the breaks if you’re gonna be a psychotic dictator who lacks a sense of scale. :wink:

8

Think of it as an IRS audit.

9

Waverly,

I think, as someone else stated, that your analogy doesn’t work.

When Iraq surrendered after the first Gulf war Iraq agreed to the UN demands. The UN demanded that Iraq disarm and PROVE to UN inspectors that they had disarmed. Iraq played games with the UN inspectors for years and finally the inspectors left because they were getting no where.

Now the new UN resolution calls for Iraq to prove to inspectors, once again, that they have disarmed. Iraq, once again, is playing games. Blix says that Iraq isn’t being forth coming with the required information. (Note, I believe that Blix wouldn’t see a sledge hammer if it hit him between the eyes. Blix would go down like a poleaxed cow, wake up a little later and then state that “There was no proof of a sledge hammer”) So that is why it is up to Iraq to prove their compliance.

Slee

10

I disagree that this isn’t an audit. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe that is exactly the intention. The goal is to verify compliance, and do so in a fair, objective manner.

To be honest, I did not read the original report. I wasn’t even aware it was available. Like most people, I’m going by quotes and assessments offered by the media. Please, for the sake of all the munchkins in munchkin land, let’s not get into a debate on media bias. It was my own impression that Blix described the Iraqis as accommodating, but not going out of their way to be pro-active. Call me crazy, but that is about the best you are going to get out of someone in this situation.

Just out of curiosity, when do the inspectors touch down in Turkey, Japan, and the US? I suspect these three, and many others, have weapons they aren’t supposed to.

I also respectfully disagree that my ‘guilty until proven not innocent’ analogy doesn’t work. I know this isn’t a US court of law, but but the alternative is asking the Iraq to prove a negative. If not out of a sense of fairness, then simple logic will stand in. They should be seen as compliant unless otherwise is proven.

If the US had damning evidence, it should have been laid out on the table day one. Now that this game has been entered into, I think would be the poor world citizen who doesn’t play by the rules. When, and if, Blix and his team state, “We have found conclusive proof,” or, “We have been prevented performing an investigation,” I’ll get on board. Until then I’ll be shaking my head and being embarrassed for Bush.

december:
"’‘it’s entirely possible that France won’t be on the line.’’ -Ari Fleischer
"‘Don’t expect Germany to approve a resolution legitimatizing war. Don’t expect it.’’ -Chancellor Schroeder
“The position of Canada is that we were insisting right at the beginning, you remember, that Canada act through the United Nations, through international institutions. We believe in multi-lateralism very strongly.” -Jean Chrétien (despite John McCallum’s disingenuous statements to the contrary)

11

Interesting thread. Forgive me for a slight tangent …

One of the aspects of this (for me) is how ‘war’ seems to have become just another diplomatic option. It always used to be the absolute last resort, the one resorted to when absolutely everything else had been tried and had failed. The one that came long after every diplomatic and political avenue had been exhausted. And that was because ‘war’ was, and still is, seen as inhuman, horrifying and indicative of political failure

Yet now I read about the Inspectors and the US administrations ham-fisted attempts to construct a ‘material breach’ and I think they’re talking about whether the breach of a contract in a condition or warranty: I know the US is litigation crazy but this is ridiculous – I half expect the presidential press conferences to be run by Ally McBeal and one of those black folk church choirs that used to crop up in her day dreams.

I suppose that is, at least in part, because the US is now so confident in its ‘smart’ technology; that it can fight entire wars without accumulating body bags for itself or having the nightly news broadcast too many twisted ‘enemy’ civilian victims of ‘collateral damage’.

… it still seems bizarre to me that a democratic leader is treating pre-emptive war as … something he might choose to do… maybe, maybe not. Kinda getting tired of this guy…. Etc, etc…

12

That isn’t enough.

Just when, exactly did those countries loose a war and agree, as part of the peace settlement to allow inspectors in to verify compliance?

We know Iraq had a certain number of munitions. We want proof that those munitions were destroyed. This isn’t a new idea, the US and USSR were verifying that weapons were destroyed for years, both with inspectors on the ground and satellite photography.

13

For me, it would be the fact that they haven’t gone to war, are not gearing up for war, and have not threatened war in any way. None of them seem all that bothered. Except maybe England.

Or did you mean compelling enough for* U*S to wage war?

14

NATO has 19 members; these three quotes do not demonstrate that the bulk of the NATO allies don’t find the evidence compelling enough to wage war.

15

Rhum Runner,
Cooperation isn’t enough? Given that, and inspector who know what they are doing, there shouldn’t be any obstacle. And I’ll say this again: If the US had compelling evidence at the outset, they should have turned it over rather than agreeing to inspections. Allowing inspections seems to kind of, I dunno, imply that you will make a decision based on the results, not your own subjective opinion formed prior to any inspection.

The last set of inspections was a condition of peace. If the US can impose it’s will indefinitely, Germany, Japan, and hell, England and Mexico for that matter, better get their shit together.

December,
Thanks for the update. I thought NATO had 4 members. Do you have knowledge that other members, outside of the UK, would agree to a war outside of a unilateral UN decision? I gave 3 examples to the contrary. I did not state that I had supplied the full body of written text ever set to print on the subject.

16

Oh, and the 4 members I was thinking of were Texas, the USA, England, and Israel. You learn something new every day.

17

The thing is, Iraq is in breach of the UN resolution. Both the non-compliance with the inspectors and the chemical weapon delivery systems are in direct violation. That is if I’m remembering it correctly.

My problem is, this is a breach of a UN resolution, not a direct threat to the soveringty of the US. To me, the appropriate action would be done through the UN by most member nations to strengthen the role of the UN in world politics and being to build precident in regards to inforcing UN resolutions.

18

There has been no cooperation. The inspectors are not there to invsetigate, they are there to inspect.

The last set of inspectors were kicked out by Iraq, they did not finish the job. These inspectors are mearly a continuation. The US can impose its will until the terms of the agreement are satisfied. This has nothing to do with Germany or Japan or England or Mexico.

19

“While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.” - Hans Blix

If it the choice was inspection or war, why did it take 12 years reach this conclusion? Given such seeming black and white terms, I’d say the last decade was marked by complacency, despite the embargos. If there were an international statute of limitations, I’d say this would be bordering on it.

And the inspections are taking place. A course of action shouldn’t precede their conclusion, no?

20

I agree that there are inspectors in Iraq. Whether or not inspections are taking place seems to be in doubt. If Iraq continues to move things and hide things then the inspections are process with out substance.