Posted on 06/03/2003 8:57:58 PM PDT by Nachum
Two oddly similar searches are underway in Iraq these days one for Saddam Hussein and the other for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Neither has yet been found.
No one has yet argued that because Saddam has not been located, he never existed. But that is what some are saying about the coalition forces' not finding actual WMD. Probably those weapons were well hidden; maybe some were latterly destroyed. What if they are never found does that undercut the rationale for going to war against Saddam Hussein?
Hardly. WMD were never the basic reason for the war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors. Rather, the basic reason was Saddam's having signed a contract with the United States, then breaking his promise.
Let's replay this video: Iraqi and coalition military leaders met in southern Iraq on March 3, 1991, to sign a cease-fire agreement. This was right after the US-led coalition forces ejected Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
The agreement they drew up had many provisions specifying the cease-fire line, prohibiting certain activities by Iraqi troops, ending support for terrorism. Foremost among them was the demand that Baghdad dismantle all its WMD. To give this teeth, Baghdad had to accept outside inspectors who would locate and destroy the offending weapons.
Saddam Hussein's regime had been routed. So his generals accepted these terms, immediately and without argument. They had no choice. Exactly a month later, on April 3, the United Nations Security Council endorsed these terms in Resolution 687.
The resolution required that Iraq "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
"(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
"(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."
THE UN resolution also included provisions for a "Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities."
This work of locating and destroying was supposed to be completed in 120 days.
No way. Instead, for seven and a half years Saddam Hussein and his minions played a cat-and-mouse game. They hid weapons and documents, threatened the Special Commission personnel, and on the sly developed new WMD. Overall, were more WMD destroyed or built in that period? It's hard to say.
Feeling ever more confident with what he could get away with, Saddam finally closed down the inspections in August 1998. His government blithely announced it had completely fulfilled the terms of Resolution 687 and ejected the Special Commission from Iraq. Saddam Hussein now had a free hand to build WMD without those bothersome inspectors. With this step, however, he broke the Safwan contract.
The correct US response to this outrage should have been "Let the inspectors back in and cough up your WMD-related activities or else."
But 1998 was the era of post-history dot.com fog when Bill Clinton was diverted by the Lewinsky scandal. As a result, Saddam got away with his defiance. Four long years then followed without anyone keeping tabs on what WMD Saddam might be developing.
Then came 9/11 and a new American sense that the world is a dangerous place. The old casualness toward broken promises was no longer acceptable.
Beginning in early 2002, George W. Bush began exerting pressure on Iraq to fulfill its agreement or pay the consequences.
The result? The same old cat-and-mouse game, with Baghdad and the United Nations both hoping this would satisfy the United States government. It did not.
The Bush administration rejected the pretense of UN inspections and insisted on real disarmament or a change in regime. When the former did not occur, the latter did.
The moral of this story: Uncle Sam enforces his contracts even if a few years late. Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that US leaders should make the most of. The campaign in Iraq is ultimately not about weapons. It's not about the United Nations. And it's not about Iraqi freedom.
It is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences.
The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America.
"It is about keeping promises to the United States or paying the consequences."
Nations all around the world have been tweaking our noses for decades and the payback has been a bigger foreign-aid check.
This is nonsense.
Pakastan, our trusty ally, supported hundreds of madrassas (terrorist training camps) for years. Under pressure from us they have gone through the motions of closing some of them. The moment we are distracted, those camps will re-open.
Red China, when reprimanded by a U.S. Ambassador over bellicose moves it was making toward Taiwan, politely inquired over tea precisely how fond we were of Los Angeles.
In other words they threatened to nuke one of our largest cities, and we took another slice of humble pie with our tea.
Look at Saudi Arabia, our "friends" who financed Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups. When we asked if we could use that big base we built to save their sorry asses the last time around they told us "NO"...until certain pressures were brought to bear.
The ChiComs stole (and are stealing) us blind with illegal technology transfers. They knocked down one of our aircraft (an act of war) and disassembled it/reverse engineered it at their leisure. Eventually they gave it back to us in crates. What penalty was exacted?
North Korea started up their public atomic bomb program (the secret one never stopped). Boy did they ever pay. We increased the various bribes we pay them and said some bad things about them.
Quaking in their boots, the lot of them.
--Boris
In the words of Austin Powers: "Yeaaaah, baby..."
Pipes rewrites history. The reason for the invasion is much more simple than he wants to admit. It's the same reason we attacked the former Yugoslavia. We are taking out the trash (Saddam, Milosevic) left over from previous Cold War or regional power military politics.
The correct slogan is "The United States always cleans up after itself".
Big power politics as usual. They were just letting us know how serious they are about regaining Taiwan as a province. And since they think long term, as long as it happens in the next 50 years or so, they are okay with that. They know that if they nuked LA, we would nuke one of their cities...probably not Beijing, but Shanghai or something like that. By making the statement, they were letting us know that might be a price they are willing to pay to get Taiwain.
I assume the question is serious so I will answer seriously.
(1) Madrassas. Cruise missiles, one per camp, no warning. Timed for when 'class is in session.'
(2) Red Chinese threats: "We are very fond of Los Angeles, thanks for asking. Any attack on U.S. soil will result in the reduction of Beijing to a glass parking lot...for starters."
(3) I would have started with Saudi Arabia. Mecca would no longer exist. Nor Medina. And while we are at it, we should do the Israelis a good turn by removing that abomination that soils the Dome of the Rock.
(4) The aircraft incident:
(a) Find out why there was no destruct system (for sensitive equipment and data) on board. Fire and/or jail anyone responsible for the lapse.
(b) If there was a destruct system and it was not activated, court-martial the ass of the mission commander.
(c) All future flights go with fighter escort.
(d) The aircraft on the ground should have been instantly destroyed as soon as we were sure our crew was off it.
(5) North Korea. The INSTANT they began removing cameras and locks, all of those facilities should have been reduced to dust.
--"President" Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.