Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute on The Road to War:
A year ago, Bush said: "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes [the "axis of evil" — Iraq, Iran, and North Korea] pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists." This year, he said: "These regimes could use such weapons [chemical, biological, and nuclear] for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies."
The mantra is revealing. Quite simply, this is the president's case for military action against Iraq. Everything else — U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, weapons inspections, Saddam's brutal oppression of his own people — is just window-dressing. It comes down to the simple belief that Saddam will give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, in particular al Qaeda.
But there is scant evidence to support that belief. To be sure, Saddam and certain terrorist groups share a common hatred for the United States. However, that is hardly an overwhelming incentive for Iraq to hand over weapons of mass destruction, especially if it knows that it would be at the top of the suspect list and the target of overwhelming retaliation. Indeed, the lesson of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan is that such an association is a certain prescription for regime change.
Yet Iraq has had more than a decade to pass off its chemical and biological weapons to Palestinian terror groups to use against Israel — a country Iraq hates as much as the United States — and has not done so. On the contrary, Saddam trusts only a few very loyal officers with such weapons.
Scant evidence is apparently is the rule of the day. How many people are we going to kill while we violate international borders in an immoral interference in the sovereign affairs of another nation? Of course, if you believe that the Office of the President of the United States has been upgraded to the Office of His Highness, Supreme Ruler of Terra, feel free to disagree.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
Like the admiral who gave 12 reasons for not firing a salute, the twelfth of which was that he had no powder, a certain kind of doveish commentator’s position can be summed-up thus: “I’m against war because I’m not convinced Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction, but even if they are I’m against war because the UN has not authorised it, but if they do I’m against war because an invasion would prove a military fiasco, but even if it didn’t I’m against war because toppling Saddam would destabilise Iraq, but even if it didn’t I’m against war because it will antagonise moderate Arab opinion.”
Posted by on February 5, 2003 04:26 PM
Not even close, but thanks for the cowardly anonymous posting.
Posted by James Landrith on February 5, 2003 04:50 PM
Confused by this post? “Immoral interference in the sovereign affairs of another nation?” Does this refer to potential war or inspections to make sure Iraq complies with their treaty to disarm? They are clearly not disarming. Whether that justifies war or not is debatable. However, IMHO the inspections are not immoral interference. The problem is how to conduct more effective inspections or pursue a peaceful solution to force Saddam to disarm as he agreed to years ago.
Posted by Minister of Dis on February 5, 2003 06:02 PM
Perhaps the Minister of Dis could explain where exactly in the Constitution our Administration finds the powers granted to conduct inspections in other nations?
Posted by James Landrith on February 5, 2003 06:16 PM
Nice comeback James. Lets see Saddam agreed to inspections, and he agreed to disarm after the gulf war.
3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.
6 Apr 1991 Iraq accepts resolution 687 (1991) (S/22456).
18 Apr 1991 Iraq provides initial declaration required under resolution 687 (1991), declares some chemical weapons and materials and 53 Al-Hussein and Scud type long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq declares it has no biological weapons programme.
and so on….
So it has nothing to do with the constitution. Furthermore, it isthe UN doping the inspections and not the U.S.
Posted by Minister of Dis on February 5, 2003 07:37 PM
Wow… more and more pro-war posters. I like that. It means things are starting to commingle.
Ministry of Dis: You’re right that the question of whether violating a treaty to disarm is just cause for invasion is debatable. Very debatable.
Anonymous: If violation of UN resolutions meant that invasion was necessary, then we would have to invade a lot of places. The UN has never been good at enforcing it’s resolutions cheifly because member states pretty much comply to the degree they feel they need to. The US has broken many resolutions. Israel has broken many more. Most western European nations have been in violation here and there. This doesn’t de-legitimize either the UN, the US or anyone, by the way. It simply shows that building international consensus is a very very difficult process. It is still incredibly important for our future as a species.
It’s like a neighborhood. Maybe everyone in the neighborhood agrees that the Jonses down the block have a dengerous dog. What do we do to rectify this situation? Maybe first we gettogether and talk to Mr and Ms Jones. Maybe they don’t see the problem. Maybe they’re covering for their dog, who may or may not have killed squirrels in their back yard, or been the reason they moved from the last place they lived. Maybe we call the Animal Control people, who tell us they can’t really do anything until the dog attacks.
Then maybe some people in the neighborhood, people who are freaked out about their children being attacked after watching a sensational account on Dateline NBC, decide that they’ve got todo something. What if the dog gets off its leash? Someone must think of the children. He could get loose at any moment. They get together and decide that unless Mr and Ms Jones get rid of they dog, they’re going to shoot it, and possibly the Jones’s if they get in the way.
Being good neighbors, they want to consult with the others before taking their bold plan forward. The more logical neighbors are understandibly appalled, so the pro-dog-killing faction regroups and prepares a dossier full of circumstantial evidence that the dog is dangerous, that the Jones’s are covering for past misdeed, an animated slide show illustrating how the dog might escape. And while the level-headed neighbors are appreciative of the effort, they are largely unmoved.
That’s kind of where we are now, save that I don’t belive that our leaders are motivated by real fear, though they clearly want to use fear to motivate the public. This begs the question: what are their motivations? Unless there’s something very big we’re not being told, there’s no legitimate reason to have this war. Since the Administration’s line has been pretty constant for the past 6 months, I doubt there’s any incriminating intelligence that we haven’t seen. So explain how this war is a good idea please?
No one’s saying Saddam is a cuddly puppy. He’s a brutal dictator. No one’s deluding themselves into thinking he’s a willing participant in disarmerment. He’s evasive and devious. That’s not nearly enough cause to invade another country. Not even close.
Posted by outlandish on February 5, 2003 11:21 PM
“No one’s saying Saddam is a cuddly puppy. He’s a brutal dictator. No one’s deluding themselves into thinking he’s a willing participant in disarmerment. He’s evasive and devious. That’s not nearly enough cause to invade another country.”
absolutely right on.
yet.
since the REAL case for war is *not* about WMD or terrorism, but strategic control of the Middle East and its resources, which after the Saudi’s little thank-you-and-a-warning present to NY seems a little less reliable than it was even when it wasn’t reliable…
I’m not convinced by this war at all, either, if the motives were Iraqi WMD and terrorism of course they don’t stand on their own. but, I can’t deny those other real motives beyond those pretexts are, well, real, and make make some kind of intervention necessary. I just wish those goals could be achieved without war, or possibly a military intervention that would be targeted on the regime, not the people.
Posted by distraction on February 6, 2003 02:54 AM
Mister of Dis…..you are wasting your time….they wouldn’t agree to confront Sadaam if he drove a truckload of sarin into their living room.
So far their best argument is “Sadaam, you bad boy, if you don’t comply with resolution 1441 we will, we will……do some more inspections!!! Sorry, Mr. Hussien, can I hold that cattleprod for you.
People, today was a moment in history…..the UN has proven itself powerless, irrelevant, and every two bit thug with delusions of grander will be trying to blackmail the world for years to come.
And guess what…..this blog helped make it happen. Thanks, thanks a fucking lot.
Posted by anonymous on February 5, 2003 10:32 PM
This blog helped bring down the UN?
Now that’s a joke. Get a life.
Posted by Scott on February 5, 2003 11:07 PM
“Of course, if you believe that the Office of the President of the United States has been upgraded to the Office of His Highness, Supreme Ruler of Terra, feel free to disagree.”
erm, it’s not a matter of belief! the US has been supreme rulert erris nostrae for like the past hundred years, its not an upgrade, dude, get with the program 😉
to use a classic phrase of politicians: that’s the “lesser of evils”. I just wish they could spare the rhetoric at least. its killing me.
Posted by distraction on February 6, 2003 02:46 AM
“How many people are we going to kill while we violate international borders in an immoral interference in the sovereign affairs of another nation?”
A shitload.
THE WAR AND OCCUPATION IN IRAQ ARE ILLEGAL
By: Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett*
Much has been said and written about America’s war, and occupation of Iraq. Amongst the community of nations of the world, and within the minds of the citizens of the world, two statements might succinctly clarify the issues of war and occupation in Iraq. The war was illegal under international law. The occupation remains illegal under international law. The point is:-
â€oe Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:-
â€oe (3) All member states shall settle their internationaldisputes by peaceful means
in such a manner that international peace and security, andjustice, are not endangered.â€
â€oe (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.â€
Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force
â€oe … if an armed attack occurs…†(or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the Security Council is the other.â€
( Quote: â€oeLearn the Law†pp. 154-155 – published Trafford 2003 – ISBN 141200775-5)
World leaders ought consistently to be asked – where is your lawful authority for your current course of action?
In assessing the statements of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the immediate pre-war period, one clearly discerns concerted efforts to lend legitimacy to the war as then planned. The possession of, or imminent intention to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) was the‘reason’ and ploy used to commence the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush and Blair lied to, and misled their respective citizenry and the world. If the war in Iraq was to be deemed‘legal’, there had to be a legitimate basis under international law, and of that Bush and Blair were fully aware. I make the following common sense observation:-
â€oe At the end of the war, WMDs had to be found – but where ( Iraq is a big country) and by whom? UN weapons inspectors had been pulled out of Iraq to let the sacred mission of bombing Iraq begin. After the war, the U.S. enforced the holy seal of sanctions against return of the UN inspectors. The reasonable inquiry might be – since the UN inspectors were central to the process of diligently and honestly searching for WMDs before the war – why not let them conclude that honest and diligent search, after the war, to the satisfaction of the international community?â€
( Ibid: p. 157)
I admit error, because earlier in 2003, I thought we wereâ€oe At the end of the war…†– but, now I am proven wrong. A war of resistance to American and foreign occupation continues apace in Iraq.
During the course of the twentieth century there was the war fought to end all wars – World War 1. That war lay the foundation for the next global conflagration – World War 11.An attempt at sanity, and for the preservation of international peace arose in the immediate post-World War 11 period. Thus, the United Nations came into being, and Article 2(3) of its Charter stated, â€oeAll member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means…â€. The Charter does not abolish war, so much as that it provides a mechanism for the legitimate use of force, when all efforts at resolution byâ€o epeaceful means†have failed. The approaches of Bush and Blair towards Iraq are more reminiscent of aggressive conduct in the pre-World War 11 era, than being indicative of desire for civilized and lawful conduct more than fifty years after the UN multilateralist system was established. Bush and Blair have acted illegally and remain devoid of a legitimate cloak for their actions in Iraq. â€oeGlobal justice†is the phrase which best describes where the world is compelled to go, if peaceful survival is desired. Global justice is not a mere abstract concept, for its pursuit remains imperative for avoiding the kinds of unnecessary warfare that plagued the world before World war 11 , and it continues to be the only viable and sane alternative to the new unilateralist and illegal dispensations of the likes of Bush and Blair.
There cannot be one set of rules for the convenience of big powers in the world, and another set for all other nations. The Charter of the United Nations has quite clear provisions aimed at the preservation of international peace. President Bush and Prime Minster Blair have set their own standards, rules, and pattern of conduct in response to Iraq. Their standards, rules, and conduct auger well for future wars and remain manifestly– illegal.
*The author is a lawyer who has defended human rights cases. His web site is http://www.globaljusticeonline.com. His new book isentitled, â€oe Learn the Law.â€
——————————————————————————–
Posted by Courtenay Barnett on December 15, 2003 04:15 PM
Pena on War with Iraq
Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute on The Road to War: A year ago, Bush said: “By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes [the “axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran, and North Korea] pose a grave and growing danger…
I think bush is president and nonelese! I beleve that means he is the leader of this contry AND NOT YOU!
I beleave what’s rong with America today no one knows how to stand by their leader eney more! If this grate nation is ever to fall apart its for that very reason the people should learn how to stand by their leader once more weather hes demecratic orrepublic! he’s just doing his job! SO LEAVE HIM ALONE!!! He knows what hes doing. America has forgoten freedom isent free! Freedom cost and no money can’t buy it eather it cost blood some one is unforunatly going to half to die for it ANDTHAT SHOULD BE RESPECTED! Bush is only whanting to free Iraq. America has forgoten what its like to be told what to do24-7. wether you claim you can do with out freedom or not YOU CAIN’T! you would entirly chang your mind if you were anIraq civilan!! And by the way after Bush took the oath to be president he reseved power!
Posted by Michael Thompson on April 22, 2004 12:50 PM
Michael Thompson said: “I think bush is president and nonelese! I beleve that means he is the leader of this contry AND NOT YOU!”
Correct. He’s president, not His Majesty, not emperor, not king, not dictator, but president. As such, he is an employee of Corporation America, shareholders: every last man, woman and child in the nation. He answers to US, not the other way around. If we don’t like his job performance, we get to say so.You don’t have to like it, but you do have to live with it.
Michael Thompson said: “I beleave what’s rong with America today no one knows how to stand by their leader eney more! If this grate nation is ever to fall apart its for that very reason the people should learn how to stand by their leader once more weather hes demecratic or republic!”
Actually, we have this little thing in this country called the Constitution. Attached to that Constitution is the novel idea called the Bill of Rights. Get a copy. Read the First Amendment. This incredible, short piece of prose is what separates our nation from dicatorships like Iraq. Also, please invest in a dictionary.
Michael Thompson said: “he’s just doing his job! SO LEAVE HIMALONE!!!”
Dear clueless Michael, part of his job is answering to the people. Get used to it.
Michael Thompson said: “He knows what hes doing.”
IN YOUR OPINION, “he knows what hes doing.”
Michael Thompson said: “America has forgoten freedom isent free! Freedom cost and no money can’t buy it eather it cost blood some one is unforunatly going to half to die for it ANDTHAT SHOULD BE RESPECTED!”
Michael, what you just said is the very point of this blog. Bush committed our nation to an unnecessary war which cost thousands of lives and billions of TAXPAYER monies. Spill some of your own blood and give him all of your money if you wish, but do try to be a grownup about the fact that we, as citizens of this nation, have a say in where our money goes and what fights we pick overseas which have a direct effect on our security and financial status.
Michael Thompson said: “Bush is only whanting to free Iraq.”
Again, see Constitution thingy. Bush doesn’t have the authority to “free Iraq.” Further, Bush didn’t start this war to “free Iraq,” he started it *supposedly* to find weapons of mass destruction- a task at which he failed miserably. You need to get your Freeper logic untangled.
Michael Thompson said: “America has forgoten what its like to be told what to do 24-7. wether you claim you can do with out freedom or not YOU CAIN’T!”
This isn’t a dictatorship nutball. No one has told me what to do”24-7″ since I was honorably discharged from the Corps in January 1995. I’ll spill blood before that changes.
Michael Thompson said: “you would entirly chang your mind ifyou were an Iraq civilan!!”
I’m not an Iraqi civilian. I am American, endowed with certain inalienable rights, one of which is freedom of speech. Sorry bubba, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Nice doggie.
Michael Thompson said: “And by the way after Bush took the oath to be president he reseved power!’
Umm – okay. Whatever that means.
Posted by James Landrith on April 22, 2004 01:22 PM