The Iraq Debate is Over

Maybe, just maybe, it means we should rethink our position?

The purpose of the United Nations is not solely to be a body that compels rogue states by mandate, but to also function as a forum for the most serious of debates - where ideally cool heads prevail, and where prevailing arguments must be so compelling that they rise to an indisputable resonance.

Disagreements are commonplace. Differences of opinion will always exist. Pathological enmity between nation states is a historical reality. Convincing a council to take any type of unilateral action should require difficult debate. A pluralistic body should never become the rubber stamp of it's most powerful members.

"Maybe, just maybe, it means we should rethink our position? "

Finally, words of wisdom! Yes, YES, i have rethought my position, and now resolve to stone adulterers myself, as it is demanded of us:
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

(Todd, you're correct in using both your head, and your heart, together. When baloney is so obvious the truth will bear out, have no fear. Read more widely on the web, most people agree with you.)

Ah, the classic slight of hand, well practiced by General Powell this week, but with poor results. I mention Iraq, you mention Bin Ladin --- despite the fact that the last OSB missive also called for the overthrow of Hussein (a fact under-reported in the American media). Like most of the U.N., and many Americans, I'm just not buying the administration argument that attacking Iraq somehow makes the U.S.A. more safe from terror attack. The opposite argument seems to be more likely true, but call me logical. Please note: I harbor no ideals that the world wouldn't be better off without Hussein and Bin Laden. Like the U.N. dissenters, my issue is with approach.

I think the U.S. shoud take Saddam out. He's a thorn in the side of the entire world and the U.S. seems to be the only country with enough balls to take him down.

G. Bush Sr. didn't finish the job, so it's time for Big G.W. to get it done. Don't mess with Texas.

Mike, perfect encapsulation of the level of thinking behind Bush foreign policy. Bravo.

Big G.W. isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's got balls. Balls are a good thing when it comes to wiping out Saddam.

A sissy like Al Gore would probably wait until the U.S. got nuked before he'd send troops over to Iraq to open up a can of whoop-ass on Saddam.

The U.S. military is hardly going to have a problem wiping out Iraq. Especially when there are apparently going to be a couple thousand Canadian troops going over to help. Everyone knows the Canadian military is a force to be reckoned with.

As a canadian, I find it funny that the US are trying so hard to move out a guy they help a couple of years ago... Saddam has receive billions in 82 and now he's the big bad wolf.

He may be crazy, but maybe the US needs to stop trying to bully every nation when they dont play well.

Read more http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/iraq.php

Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance

WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

- courtesy The Onion

Imho the life of thousands of people shouldn't
depend on someone having balls or not. You
know, this ain't a movie picture, this is reality.

Maybe you try to get your hand on the Cheney
report to understand the real motivation of
bush's legislation. In short, it is all about getting
their hands on iraq's oil.
If you are a manager of a big oil company,
this probably looks like a perfect reason to kill
somebody. If not, you should think about it a
second time.

It seems that Americans people are completely brainswashed by their governement. The only person here who remembered US funded Iraq during its war against Iran is a fellow Canadian. Go read non-american medias. Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/ - English edition) had a lot of good articles on Iraq in January 2003. George and Colin are not your best sources of information, believe me.

And don't forget that the most threathen people in this situation, both by Saddam and the US, is Iraq's own people. That's why I'll manifest (??- sorry, I don't remember the correct word in English) against the war this afternoon in Montreal by -20 Celsius!

And just in case you really want to dig into the cheney
report, here ist the link:
http://www.eei.org/issues/news/natl_energy_policy/index.shtml

RE: Jonathan

Plenty of Americans remember the support the United States provided Iraq in their ongoing, senseless war against Iran. The very same people also remember the support the American government gave pre-Taliban forces in Afghanistan during the early 1980s in their fight to liberate their country from the Soviet Union. To say that by once supporting a militia group or nation is a reason to not engage them in the future is disingenuous. Agendas change.

Evil men start war.

http://www.onrelease.org/nowar/

Thanks for your always cogent posting on this topic, Todd. The "antiwar-at-all-costs" side always forgets that Saddam can end this right now if he wanted to by being forthright and truthful. All of the UN resolutions you refer to place the burden quite correctly on him and his ruling national-socialist Ba'ath Party. The antiwars are quick to denounce Saddam as a "bad guy" but are equally as quick to take any sign of his cooperation with the UN as signs of eventual peaceful disarmament -- a convenient contradiction against all history has shown.

Even more ridiculous an idea -- which you point out as such -- is that since the US and Iraq were once allies against the terrible Islamic fundamentalism still corroding Iran these days, we should be blaming ourselves for his madness and simply roll over. Osama bin Laden "himself" said that even though he despises the socialism of Saddam, since that regime is Muslim, he will ally himself with them against the West.

Do people forget we were allied with the Soviets to defeat national socialism and fascism in Europe -- then had a 40+ year Cold War against those allies?

I think that a lot of the debate around Iraq probably isn't so much around whether or not we should go to war -- as you noted, the consequences of Resolution 1441 are clear -- but rather what happens AFTER that.

Saddam is a dictator, a tyrant. I think bringing honest to God democracy to Iraq is a good thing, and one that most people would support.

However, there's the question of how long that will take, how much it will cost, what happens along the way, and how one handles the different social and cultural tensions that might come up, given that the tyrant holding the country together is gone. Robert D. Kaplan of the Atlantic Monthly noted that true democracy makes things more complex, rather than simpler. Tyrants actually make things easier -- one guy to deal with, and an iron fist to bring people in line.

While the USA has military muscle, we haven't necessarily shown a solid backbone in doing the work (see Afghanistan). Who knows how long our attention span will last, and it might end up being easier appointing another tyrant or figure of that nature in power in Iraq after a bit. We've done it before.

And I think that's one of the big points of contention around the globe -- can the USA be trusted to keep its word in the matter over the long haul? How can we trust that Big Oil won't take over the fields in Iraq in the long run? Folks are worried. And they should be.

This is a conversation that has to happen. And, right now, I don't trust the Bush Administration to put in the effort and spend the political capital necessary to do it. Bush seems to want us to think that it'll all be short, sweet, and cheap. No sacrifice on our part.

That, of course, is B.S.

It's so easy to sit in one's comfy home and be against war. try sitting in a home where mothers are afraid to send kids to school in a bus because it might explode, or a city where the people are summoned to receive a gas mask, because the neighbor decided he does not like you, so he will be firing gas enabled SCUD missiles.

I remember the first gulf war. I was a 12th grade student. My school was closed after the first day of missile attacks, all it’s windows shattered by a near by SCUD landing. We don’t have anything to do with Iraq, Israel has no border with it, it’s more than 600 km from us, yet he fired 30 days of missiles attacks. Why? Because there is no one to stop him. He threw nerve gas on his own citizens in 1987. His own.

The US is not an angel. No one is. It sure has it’s own agenda in this. But expecting Sadam to act better just because we want him to? Europe is blind. It is fooled by it’s hate to the Americans to believe this man understands diplomacy.

So keep sitting in your warm homes, and protest against war. Until it comes knocking on your door.

War is the problem, not the solution. Certainly a lesson Israel might do well to put into practice as well.

Todd,

I just have to say that it's saddening to see your comments after enjoying your web log for that long. After making fun of the duck-tape issue I thought that you had a sensible and pragmatic view on this whole issue.
I live in NYC, just by the UN and (even worse I guess) just 100 feet from the Israeli Consulate. Today I'm literally behind the barricades. So, I have a good reason to be afraid of terrorism in my neck of the woods.
So what to do to ease the threat of terrorism?

Well, you could go against the whole world community and bomb Iraq back to the stone age. Not likely the most sensible way of avoiding terrorism here, is it?

Btw. If Iraq had all these weapons of mass destruction who would think that the US wants a new Vietnam? A US led war against some banana republic cannot lead to dead American soldiers.

Just a reminder - a sentiment very well expressed in Todd's original post:

The ramifications of this debate play out on a much larger scale than Iraq. The very foundation of international unity and enforcement has been rocked. Which, I should add, is why the United States should not take action unilaterally. By doing so, they ignore the very same laws of international responsibility as Iraq - which is hardly a solution the issue.

(emphasis mine)

Maybe it's time more people here in the U.S. really understood what the job of the U.N. weapons inspectors is, and how it relates to 1441.

The weapons inspectors' role is not what most people think, which is that they just look for weapons or evidence of weapons and (should they find something), just step aside and let us bulldoze through the country. They are also the ones who DISARM and DISMANTLE these weapons.

So Colin and all those who are saying that we should be sending in troops now only are wrong. The only reason that we would be justified in doing so under 1441 is if the inspectors found weapons and Saddam did something to stop the instpectors from disarming them.

Of course, if we send in troops, we will be able to find out much quicker if Saddam has any hidden WMD's... BECAUSE HE WILL BE **USING THEM ON US***!!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong... You're saying that if the UN disagrees with the US and UK, it has failed? Reminds me of a childrens joke: Proud parents watching the parade saying "Look. Our little George is the only one marching in tune".

I don't think the UN is failing. I'd rather say the opposite. That the world is trying to get George W. and his fellow warmongers back down on this earth. The US still has massive debts to the UN and they have never fullfilled their promises to the international community.

I agree with much of the anti-war sentiments being expressed here and around the world, but I would not consider myself "anti-war" -- rather, I am anti-simplistic. We've heard from the 'balls' crowd, the 'yeah, well, agendas change' summation, and the 'you don't know what it's like to be bombed' representative, and yet none of these rationales for launching a vast land war in Asia look beyond anything further for their justification than some glorious, trans-temporal act of violence.

Ah, the light and fury must mean a solution.

It will not work. It never has. Millions die, or barely survive, dispossessed of history. The consideration of repercussions -- for which history is the only source -- is not much fun, agreed. Nor does it gratify the post-Cold War needs of a global military-industrial-petroleum complex whose budgetary cycles demand quick answers and an unquestioning populace/consumer base. But we are living in times where (thank you, M.A.) armies of metaphor are clashing by night, and their claims cannot be taken as unblemished truth. Certainly not truths worth dying for, or killing for.

I come to this blog for the exquisite and utterly appropriate design being displayed -- I wish I were half as good. But it's confusing to be confronted with the obvious visual result of relentless and masterful discernment, and find it combined with uncritical assertions on réalpolitik.

Blair could be out of office before Saddam, thanks to W's deft handling of the situation:

"Tony Blair laid his political future on the line yesterday as he spelt out the moral case for waging war on Iraq, warning peace marchers that there would be 'consequences paid in blood' for showing weakness now. For the first time he admitted his premiership was in danger if he was unable to ride out the storm, implying that to back down now in the face of the terrorist threat could spell the end of the New Labour project."

Exerpted from The Guardian UK

DIscouraging to hear such dismay at no war. Bravo Dolan for bringing a little credibility back to your nation; its easy for Canadians to have a less than flattering view of our neighbors when so often they don't do much to help themselves out of that perception.

Stop eating the lies being fed you folks. Your president mocks democracy and has been doing so from and since his "election".

I write this to protest against all those people who oppose the war against Saddam Hussein, or as they call it, the "war against Iraq". I am an Iraqi doctor, I worked in the Iraqi army for six years during Iraq-Iran war and four months during Gulf war. All my family still live in Iraq. I am an Arab Sunni, not Kurdish or Shia. I am an ordinary Iraqi not involved with the Iraqi opposition outside Iraq.

I am so frustrated by the appalling views of most of the British people, media and politicians. I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history.

My family and almost all Iraqi families will feel hurt and anger when Saddam's media shows on the TV, with great happiness, parts of Saturday's demonstration in London. But where were you when thousands of Iraqi people were killed by Saddam's forces at the end of the Gulf war to crush the uprising? Only now when the war is to reach Saddam has everybody become so concerned about the human life in Iraq.

Where were you while Saddam has been killing thousands of Iraqis since the early 70s? And where are you are now, given that every week he executes people through the "court of revolution", a summary secret court run by the secret security office. Most of its sentences are executions which Saddam himself signs.

I could argue one by one against your reasons for opposing this war. But just ask yourselves why, out of about 500,000 Iraqis in Britain, you will not find even 1,000 of them participating tomorrow? Your anti-war campaign has become mass hysteria and you are no longer able to see things properly.

Locum consultant neurologist, London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,895397,00.html

I've no doubt that Saddam is a horror to the people of Iraq. Just as Kim Il Jun is a horror to the people of North Korea, or that tyrants and despots exist in many countries, some with American support, and some desipte American scorn. What I object to, and what many of the millions who marched today object to, is the logic that pre-emptively attacking a sovereign nation, even one as potentially deserving as Saddam's Iraq, somehow makes the world of 2003 a safer place. I think the inverse is quite more likely, and as Douglas posted above, it would be in America's best interest to start to acknowledge that there are complexities to this issue beyond big balls, finishing Daddy's job, and fixing up my buddies in the oil industry for years to come.

"Where were you while Saddam has been killing thousands of Iraqis since the early 70s? "

Helping him persecute your supposed comrades, thats where. This is blatant propaganda. You make me sick.

The majority of the issues in Iraq, as a former citizen would bloody well know, is the sanctions set forth by daddy Bush's war.

Someone pointed out that it's easy to just sit comfortably at home and shout ‘war’, but I think it's just as easy to sit at home crying for peace, and avoiding action by pointing out the dangers and difficulties of doing so.

No one can be so naive as to believe that, given past twelve years of political failings in this regard, Iraq is actually going to comply. Following the gulf war, Iraq claimed to have no WMD, years later in 94/95 the inspectors uncovered such weapon stocks, and were later kicked out in 98. Now they're back - perhaps in a few years they'll be able to find where Iraq is hiding their current weapons cache, and then be kicked out again a while after that. Back to square one again eh?

In the meantime, several thousand more Iraqis are kidnapped, tortured, executed, massacred, and a 1,000-year-old culture is wiped out while the world does nothing. The so-called ‘humanitarians’ of yesterday's world-wide protests claim they want to save the Iraqi people, where have they been for the last twelve years?

Brian, you claimed that sanctions are the scourge of the Iraqi people, but I didn't see any food and medicine shortages in South Africa when world introduced sanctions against them during the apartheid era. The UN obliges Saddam, by allowing the oil-for-food $$$ to be diverted to refurbishing Saddam's palaces, and funding his weapons research instead.

People argue that the US is in this solely for the oil. France's stance has nothing to do with her existing oil interests in the oil-for-food programme, and other deals with Iraq, I suppose?

Resolution 1441 passed unanimously. Is Iraq in further material breach? Yes. Are they co-operating fully? No. Yet France, Germany, Russia, and others neglect their commitments - as does Saddam.

There is no denying that war is a costly business, but ambiguous United Nations idealism will not win the day. Simply containing the Saddam regime fails to remove the threat posed, and serves only to continue to imprison and abandon innocent Iraqis - unacceptable.

"The majority of the issues in Iraq, as a former citizen would bloody well know, is the sanctions set forth by daddy Bush’s war."

Hey Brian, did you forget Saddam caused the gulf war? that the majority of the world supported the gulf war? did you forget that we spared thousands of lives by not going into the cities to get him, rather beat him back and use sanctions to restrict his rule?

All Saddam had to do was follow the rules set forth by the UN and the sanctions would be gone by now. So my question is, if the Iraqi people are so sick of sanctions, why dont they rise up and end it? There is only one thing keeping prosperity from the Iraqi's and that is SADDAM, not BUSH.

The united states, and the world has been more than gratious to every country who's aggression they have put down. Ask Japan and West Germany, how much better life was just 20 or 30 years after their prospective wars.

i wish i could edit that, nothing worse than extranious commas, and missued words to make an argument sound like it came from the south end of a north facing cow.

oh, and thanks todd for your post. i would've thought you would be on the other side of the line, instead of lodged squarly here, in the middle.

If there is a war, the US will lose poor blacks and poor whites, not you guys (for the most part, right?). Poor kids are the ones who will come back from this 'conflict' in body bags, if they come back at all. If you think that Iraq needs to be forcibly disarmed, then sign up.

But I don't think you will. One of the biggest problems in the world today, in MY OPINION, is the bourgeoisie: The bourgeois wants everything, but is willing to sacrifice nothing. And cost/benefit analyses don't count (i.e. "Someone needs to be here to keep things running, and since I'm already educated and have an established lifestyle..." etc.). What would you die for? Your family? That's too easy. Your neighbourhood, your city, your state, your country? The idea of freedom? This is the grey area, isn't it. But if you really think that your freedom -your way of life, your country, your state, your city, your neighbourhood, your family- is threatened, seriously threatened by Iraq, then sign up for regular duty in the Army. Be a grunt. Put yourselves on the frontlines. "Oh, my skills are better used somewhere else..." None of that crap. No Special Forces for you.

Those who call for war better have a draft card in their pocket (do they even use draft cards anymore?) to fight along-side poor American kids WHO WILL DIE fighting for your 'right' to 'blog away on cheap bandwidth, a luxury they probably won't get IF they come back home.

I support the men and women of the American and foreign armed forces. They are brave in away I hope I never have to be. If something I believe in is seriously threatened, to the point of decimation (can you decimate an idea?), I would like to believe I will fight. But I will not fight over oil.

I do not believe that Iraq is a threat to my safety. That's really what it boils down to. If you think that Iraq is a threat to your life, then you will fight with your life to disarm Iraq and bring Saddam before a military tribunal or "take him out," as someone so eloquently put it. Iraq doesn't scare me, the white supremacists do. Saddam doesn't scare me, ECHELON does. Terrorists don't scare me, rouge police officers do. I'm not afraid of what's over there, I'm afraid of how focusing on what's over there takes our eyes off of what's over here.

I don't mean this as flame-bait, and I sincerely apologize if it comes across that way.

Bush and Saddam both need to catch a bullet.

What's that usenet law about someone eventually mentioning the Nazis, and how it's a sign that intelligent debate on a thread has officially ceased? I think once someone talks about people 'catching a bullet' it's time to close comments.

I enjoy your site.
However, I do take issue with the thrust-chin attitude and rather sloppy factoids on this one.
Perhaps you were not aware that Turkey was America's #1 military export client during the Clinton years, and U.S. was the leading weapon shipper in the world. They hardly need our concern.
Pity the Kurds they have been used against.

Something in American minds has crystallized this last month that this administration is shipping a bill of goods that does not quite hold water.  This warship may still set sail, but the geography is changing and it will return to a different home. 

What is lacking is a credible plan & cost for winning the peace.
This week Secretary of State Powell trotted out a dodgy 12-year old thesis as current British intelligence assessments for war - spelling, grammar & factual errors lifted bodily.  It's a rather poor joke but for the consquences. Flashing a few computer renderings of possible WMD machinery, and hearsay about Kurdish-based Al Qaeda convinces only those already certain we need this war.  It's obvious the core Iraqi cadre are being invited to leave, but that America is interested in keeping the majority of generals, the vast security apparatus, and current power structures in place down to local neighborhood bosses.  Hooray for our side... some improvement. 
It was not Iraqis on those 9/11 planes and the world sees our counter-strike posture at terrorist-lead Afghanistan differently than they see us measuring Iraq today.  Who will tell the crushed Shia's in Southern Iraq that the sins of father Bush are forgiven?  As president Karzai of Afghanistan becomes merely mayor of Kabul, the world is right to be skeptical of recent American follow-through .

New World Order Is Another Word For Pain.
Consider this term Pre-emptive Retaliation : a Catch-22 phrase right out of Doctor Strangelove.  This means Korea can hit U.S. if/when threatened?  China pre-attacks Taiwan?  India, Pakistan over Kashmir?   The logic of swiss cheese for al a carte diplomacy... 
So, to help the poor people of Iraq, we blitzkrieg them with more missiles in one day than were launched in the whole of Dessert Storm... hardly a hostage rescue scenario.  
Shades of Vietnam's burn-the-village-to-save-it.

Is America about creating a better Stasi than the Stasi?  
Patriot Act II is a cynical ploy right up there with Total Information Awareness.  Revoking native citizenship; secret arrests, detentions & trials with no chance to cross examine ones accuser... these are the things they insist on doing in the name of saving us.  Spare me. 

When does Civil Servant become Civil Master?
In fact, by allowing busy-body types with ambition, or a grudge, to snoop at will and no real oversight runs the risk of the dangerous distraction.  COINTELPRO redux visited upon Judi Bari wasted lives and money chasing political agendas rather than real criminals.  Remember, while our last president was hounded out of his bedroom by the sanctimonious Ken Starr, on through to James Baker engineering the (s)election of Bush in Florida...  remember this: Mohammed Atta was laughing poolside while studying flight manuals. 

We in the computer world understand a basic principle: garbage in = garbage out.  Ramping up the quantity of data and shoving it into the same inadequate intelligence system will not make America safer.  Their archaic information engines won't find needles, they are going to find more haystacks. This is the same cabal that missed the fall of Soviets a decade+ earlier.  Our intelligence agencies knew plenty about troublesome fanatics, but was focused on desk jobs and certainly not living in a squalid cave for years gaining Osama's trust.  
The dearth of resignations following these failures is shameful.

Like a super-saturated chemical medium, people are catalyzing to peaceful protest as never seen before. Already the numbers are impressive, with more people marching than rallied at Vietnam War protests... and fighting hasn't even started.  I notice over 600 cities around the world are hosting protest marches this weekend and the estimates of feet are in the tens of millions worldwide.
Given the number of Reagan/Bush Sr personnel in this administration it is surprising how little they understand spontaneous networks organizing.  The unexpected rapidity of the citizen--> congressional--> legal resistance path made it necessary for immoral men to sell missiles to mullahs (Thanks, Colonel Ollie, Secretary Rumsfield & Vice President Bush Sr) to fund a private illegal war supporting terrorists in Nicaragua.  I lost a friend (assasinated young engineer building a dam) to this malfeasance and have little room for arguments about ends justifying means.  

I'll grant that GwB has grown as a leader from the deer-in-headlights look he used to carry.  What he does not display is depth beyond righteous anger.  We need much more than that going forward. 
From all of us.