An Essential War (by George P. Shultz)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 29, 2004 | George P. Shultz

[Puzzleman]

We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.)

[Puzzleman]

The best defense that I have seen of W's foreign policy.

[yoe]

Here are two excerpts from this very important editorial, however please READ the whole article:

That should have been that. But the debate at the U.N. went on--and on. And as it went on it deteriorated. Instead of the focus being kept on Iraq and Saddam, France induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the U.S.--a position that seemed to emerge from France's aspirations for greater influence in Europe and elsewhere. By March of 2003 it was clear that French diplomacy had resulted in splitting NATO, the European Union, and the Security Council . . . and probably convincing Saddam that he would not face the use of force.

Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the take-over of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations--including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use, or sale--behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of these criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.

[CyberAnt]

Thanks for posting this - Rush was just talking about it.

SAVE THIS - AND SEND IT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS - OR USE IT FOR HANDOUTS DURING YOUR FREEPS!! GREAT MATERIAL!!

[OESY]

These key points need to be understood:

• There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

• The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented.

• The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

• Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

• He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

• President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.

-- George P. Shultz

[Jim Noble]

President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991

Fortunately, this is false.

The legal basis for President Bush to order an attack on Iraq was the Congressional War Resolution (HJ Resolution 114) on October 10, 2002.

Any American President who uses American Armed Forces with only a phony "UN Resolution" as a basis for action should be impeached.

[cynicom]

George may be a "distinguished fellow" but he has never learned the art of writing. His essay is much too long and too ponderous to read.

[Zrob]

so is the Bible.

that reasoning is never one that should be used to disparage another's work.

[CGVet58]

No, Jim, it is not false - the original resolutions supported the 1991 Kuwaiti war of liberation - and that war did not end.

A Cease-Fire brought an end to hi-tempo combat ops; said agreement entered into by the defeated party, and said agreement being valid only insofar as the defeated party would abide by the conditions of the agreement.

When Saddam violated the Cease-Fire agreement, it automatically became null and void - thus Reinstating the condition of War by Default.

The no-fly zones, continued SAM launches on our aircraft, etc... the world commonly views this as a "non-war" war, and conveniently labels the happenings in Iraq as Gulf Wars I & II - History will show, however, that it is one war.


Webster's Online Dictionary defines "cease-fire":

One entry found for cease-fire.


Main Entry: cease-fire
Pronunciation: 'sEs-'fIr
Function: noun
1 : a military order to cease firing
2 : a suspension of active hostilities

[cynicom]

Bible??? The bible was about a wide range of things, past present and future. Now George is concerned only about terrorism. He takes up a lot of space just to utter a very few salient pronouncements. No excuse for that.

[Jim Noble]

No, Jim, it is not false - the original resolutions supported the 1991 Kuwaiti war of liberation - and that war did not end.

What is false is that Bush acted to enforce UN Resolutions (at least, I sure hope it's false).

Our actions were to defend the United States, and they were made legitimate by HJ Res. 114, NOT by the UN.

[CGVet58]

yes you are correct, and i should have been a bit more concise in my explanation of the same (instead, rushed through it and left my thought dangling, inferred that somehow I was disagreeing with you...).

HJ res 114 solidified our congressional intent most recently - but technically speaking (legally as well) it was a restatement of intent to follow through on what was and is One War in the first place.

Politics and unfortunately our American Public's penchant for having short term memory allows the perception to exist that it was a "second" war, requiring further congressional input - when in fact, it wasn't.

[greenwolf]

What should we do? First and foremost, shore up the state system.

The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other--bilaterally or multilaterally--to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them.

The Unites States could make a hell of a start in that direction by reversing a number of leftover Clinton policies, most particularly by pulling out of the Balkans and selling Serbia whatever it might need to retake Kosovo at cost.

[MarMema]

most particularly by pulling out of the Balkans and selling Serbia whatever it might need to retake Kosovo at cost.

HERE, HERE!