> Exclusive: Rumors of Wars: Correcting the Misconceptions about Iraq 
Q: Isn't the war in Iraq all about oil?
A: It would have been much easier to ease the sanctions on Iraq and import Iraqi oil legally (albeit immorally). While Iraqi oil, and the petroleum resources in the broader Middle East were certainly factors, saying that the Iraq War was a war for oil is every bit as simplistic as saying that the American Civil War was about slavery; and the latter statement is more accurate than the former. The Middle East is a strategic area because of its impact on international economy security and stability, and because many areas within the region breed violent extremism and terrorism. If the war was initiated purely for the purpose of securing oil stocks, why did President Bush exhaust his diplomatic options prior to invading? In 1998, American and British forces waged a four day bombing campaign against Iraq's alleged weapons infrastructure without so much as holding a hearing at the United Nations Security Council. Does it really make sense for President Bush to have gone to all of the diplomatic trouble of trying to force Iraqi compliance and oust the Hussein regime peacefully if he was only after the oil? If that had been the case, such an outcome could have been achieved much easier.
Q: Didn't President Bush invade Iraq because he wanted revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to have his father killed?
A: What's more likely, that the Iraq War was some giant revenge conspiracy, or that Iraq had been a continual problem for several decades, drawing the attention of four American presidents? If Bush's only target was Saddam Hussein, why didn't he have covert CIA operatives infiltrate Iraq, hunt Hussein down, and assassinate him? The Bush/Saddam Revenge theory may be very scandalous and exciting, but there is no evidence to back it up.
Q: Wasn't the invasion of Iraq prompted solely by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, because of their shady business interests?
A: While President Bush and Vice President Cheney have ties to big business, this has more to do with the versatility of leadership skills and networking. Unless someone provides hard evidence of a conspiracy (and despite attempts by conspiracy theorists, partisan journalists, and overzealous political opponents, this real evidence has failed to materialize), this claim will remain nothing more than a conspiracy theory. However, the French and Russians, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War, were found on numerous occasions to have had shady dealings with the Hussein Regime that most likely influenced their policies of opposition to the 2003 invasion. Russian diplomats unsuccessfully tipped the Iraqis off to American operational plans, a Russian company sold GPS jammers to Iraq, and numerous French officials were indicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Also, some might remember that it was the French who sold the Iraqis a nuclear reactor in the 1980s, before it was destroyed in an Israeli air raid. A greater deal of evidence exists for corruption among Iraq War opponents than for Iraq War participants.
Q: Didn't America supply weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? All of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction were American in origin anyway, so what moral or legal authority did America have to invade Iraq?
A: The American government provided minimal assistance to Iraq during the 1980s because Iraq was seen (accurately at the time) as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq War. Some estimates put American contributions at less than one percent of international arms sales to Iraq during the period in question; this is why Iraqi forces were operating Soviet-made MiG aircraft and T-72 tanks in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Iraq was a socialist state, and a Soviet client nation. American ties to Iraq were never especially strong; although some dual-use sales were highly questionable, the level of support for Iraq from America has been vastly overstated by critics of the United States. In addition, many forget the context in which Western nations cooperated with Iraq in the 1980s. This cooperation was directed against Iran, which had taken American diplomats hostage, and carried out the offensive military operations in the Persian Gulf that led to Operations Earnest Will, Nimble Archer, and Operation Praying Mantis. In spite of the naive foreign policy philosophy of the likes of former President Carter, the United States can't always rely solely on mainstream allies like the United Kingdom and Japan; sometimes, in the face of grave threats like the Soviet Union and Iran, American governments must work with less than noble regimes in order to protect American security.
Q: The 2003 invasion was the right war at the wrong time. If Hussein was going to be removed, shouldn't it have happened in 1991?
A: The Iraq War of 2003 very well could have been prevented by regime change in 1991. However, the original 1991 United Nations mandate was limited to liberating Kuwait - no contingency for carrying out justice against the Iraqi regime was allowed. Had the Coalition continued with a direct campaign against Iraq itself, coalition members such as Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates would have withdrawn their support in protest. After 9/11, the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's support for international terrorism outweighed the threat of opposition from Iraq's neighbors. So, while a solution in 1991 would likely have been better than the same solution in 2003, international politics partially driven by security concerns about Iran (a radical Persian Shia state among Sunni Arab neighbors) prevented a decisive solution at that time. Also, had Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay taken over upon his death, the situation could have been worse than it had been under Saddam. As horrible as the Hussein regime was, it was seen by many to provide stability in the political chess game of the Middle East. Many also forget that the 1991 Persian Gulf War occurred mere months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, meaning that Western forces were unable to commit the majority of their military assets to a single small-scale conflict in light of the continued threat from Moscow. As with the aforementioned issue of Iran, historical context is important.
Q: Didn't Ambassador Joe Wilson refute President Bush's claims that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger?
A: This situation is admittedly messy, but the bottom line is that many in authority discount Joe Wilson's credibility, the accuracy of his statements, and his objectivity. Subsequent investigations seem to confirm that the Iraqi government sought yellowcake uranium from Niger prior to the 2003 invasion (link, link). At any rate, President Bush's statement during the 2003 State of the Union address reported only what British intelligence had reported to American officials; this may sound nit-picky, but semantics are important in matters of international politics. The issue of yellowcake will be addressed in greater detail later.
Q: Wasn't the intelligence that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented at the Security Council in 2003 overplayed and inaccurate?
A: Every intelligence agency in the world agreed on the existence of illicit Iraqi weapons, and the intelligence provided by the State Department in early 2003 was the best intelligence available from the American and British intelligence agencies. The answer is most likely somewhere in the middle: that the intelligence was accurate, but that Saddam Hussein was also being deceptive in order to make Iran believe that he possessed more than what was actually stockpiled. What's more likely: that the entire world was wrong about Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons, or that the illicit materials were removed in the months leading up to the invasion? This will be addressed in greater detail later.
Q: Didn't they fail to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
A: Hundreds of chemical and biological rounds have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. In addition, an Iraqi chemical weapons lab was found in 2005. In 2004, Danish troops found chemical-ready artillery rounds; although they were later determined to have no chemical residue, why would the Hussein regime keep chemical rounds if it didn't intend to reconstitute its illicit weapons programs?
Relating specifically to Iraq's nuclear ambitions, Iraqi uranium oxide ("yellowcake") was found in a shipment of scrap metal in Rotterdam in January of 2004. In 2008, a secret program relocated more than five hundred metric tons of Iraqi yellowcake to Canada (link, link). Yellowcake is caustic, reactive, and slightly radioactive. The only reason to keep it around, particularly in such large quantities, is to fuel a nuclear program.
Q: Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, they couldn't have possibly been moved; could they?
A: The lengthy lead-up to the Iraq War provided ample opportunity for Hussein to arrange removal of illicit weapons. One example of this is the possible removal of weapons, explosives, and documents by Russian operatives directly prior to the 2003 invasion; note the previous assistance the Iraqis received from the Russians, and imagine the fallout Russia would have faced if invading forces had found illegal Russian contributions to Iraq's weapons programs. Remember, for all of their disputes, pre-war Iraq and Syria were both Baathist (Arab Nationalist) states. What's more likely: that the Iraqis destroyed their remaining weapons on good faith both before and after deceiving and ousting the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspectors, or that the Hussein regime used the time to temporarily (or so they hoped) spirit their illicit supplies away to allied nations for safe keeping? The HMX that disappeared from the al Qaqaa depot can be used in the development of nuclear weapons - it was forbidden for Iraq to possess under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Doesn't this seem more like evidence of a nascent nuclear program than a coincidental dual-use material, particularly given the fact that it was being stored at a weapons depot?
Q: The Iraqis had no ties to al Qaeda. How could Iraq have been any kind of threat to the United States?
A: There is a difference between al Qaeda and 9/11; there is strong evidence for an operational link between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda, even though Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. (For the record, the Bush Administration never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11, only that they were investigating the possibility; again, semantics are important in international politics.) The Hussein regime was one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism; most people don't realize that terrorism goes beyond Osama bin Laden, and that the various Islamist terrorist groups are nearly all related in one way or another. Hussein publicly funded Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. These groups have been listed since at least as far back as the Clinton administration as foreign terrorist groups that threaten America's national security and interests, according to a list published by the State Department. While the public face of the war revolved around illegal weapons, it was Hussein's support for terrorist organizations that was the biggest threat, and the reason for the coalition invasion.
Q: Wasn't Saddam Hussein contained? How could he have possibly threatened the region or the rest of the world?
A: Aside from his aforementioned sponsorship of terrorist organizations, the Hussein regime had launched unprovoked, unilateral attacks on Israel and Kuwait. Iraq also initiated an eight year war against Iran in which the Iraqi regime used chemical and biological weapons. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraqi military forces made frequent attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the UN mandated No-Fly zones. Hussein was also able to smuggle in illegal contraband, just not as quickly as before. Hussein's options may have been limited under the sanctions, but his containment was far from complete.
Q: The Iraqis were under no threat from Saddam Hussein. Weren't Iraqi citizens better off before the war?
A: Under Hussein, the Iraqi government carried out a systematic program of destruction against the Kurds and Shii. This included employment of chemical and biological weapons in the late 1980s. The Hussein regime had a well documented history of torturing and murdering dissidents and undesirables. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Hussein regime systematically corrupted the UN Oil-for-Food program; a program designed to feed the Iraqi people during punitive sanctions was perverted for the benefit of the Hussein regime, United Nations officials, and foreign agencies that provided illicit materials to Iraq illegally. While the average lifespan for an Iraqi citizen declined sharply after 1991 and the infant mortality rate climbed, the Iraqi government built palaces for Saddam Hussein while simultaneously importing contraband materials. A case for intervention could probably have been made on the basis of the humanitarian reasons alone; as a result, the opposition to the war from so-called humanitarian and human rights organizations is puzzling. While the violent impact of the war on common Iraqi citizens is horrible, one might think that these organizations would see Hussein's ouster as an opportunity to promote human rights and humanitarian assistance to the beleaguered Iraqis, particularly in light of the termination of the international sanctions that had led to a sharp decline in the state of the Iraqi people.
Q: Wasn't the Iraq War illegal? Didn't it violate international law?
A: Legal authority for the 2003 invasion went beyond UNSC Resolution 1441. Authority existed from Saddam Hussein's violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire treaty. Coalition withdrawal was legally contingent upon Saddam Hussein's full compliance with the pertinent UN Security Council resolutions. Aside from being non-compliant with UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait), Iraq was non-compliant with 17 UNSC resolutions over the course of 12 years. Admittedly, an air of vigilantism exists, but legal authority existed for the 2003 invasion based on Hussein's near-complete material breach of the aforementioned resolutions. The Iraq War was an enforcement of international law, not a violation of international law. Because of Iraq's failure to comply, the 2003 invasion could technically be seen as a continuation or completion of the 1991 war.
The world will watch with bated breath as Americans choose the next leader of the free world. As President Bush has shown, the character, judgment, and values of an American president have a profound impact on the current and future course of world events. Whoever Americans choose to succeed President Bush, the world can only hope that the collective decision of the American electorate is based on solid knowledge and understanding.
--
Jean-Louis Kayitenkore
Procurement Consultant
Gsm: +250-08470205
Home: +250-55104140
P.O. Box 3867
Kigali-Rwanda
East Africa
Blog: http://www.cepgl.blogspot.com
Skype ID : Kayisa66
August 5, 2008
Exclusive: Rumors of Wars: Correcting the Misconceptions about Iraq
Note: Taking a brief respite from my series on nuclear technology, this is an updated version of a piece I wrote in early 2007 to address common questions about the Iraq War.
More than five years after the commencement of the Iraq War, the decision to invade remains a hot political issue. Unfortunately, pundits on both sides of the issue continue to discuss the history and background of the invasion in varying degrees of ignorance. The Iraq War is the defining political issue of our day, impacting American foreign and domestic policies, economic and social concerns, and affecting nearly all Americans in one way or another.
As the presidential election inches closer and closer, the presumptive nominees continue to circulate rhetoric on either side of the issue. Although the war continues to be a reality, and we can no longer debate whether or not to invade Iraq, the discussion of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq has become a battle of conflicting philosophies and judgments. Sen. Obama criticizes Sen. McCain for both supporting the war in the first place, and for supporting the troop surge. (Why Obama's adherence to the typical Left-wing position of the day when he was an Illinois state senator is evidence of political bravery, or singularly excellent judgment, is another question entirely.) Meanwhile, Sen. McCain cites Obama's opposition to the surge, and Obama's ultimately incorrect assertions at the time that it would do nothing to stop the violence in Iraq, as evidence that the freshman senator from Illinois lacks the judgment to assume the mantle of Commander-in-Chief. As the economy appears to be showing signs of a slow recovery, foreign policy could be the major issue of this election.
Because the Iraq War is such a dominant issue, it's important that voters are informed as they listen to the candidates, make their decisions, and go to the polls. America's Founding Fathers wisely desired an educated, discerning, responsible electorate in order to safeguard the existence and excellence of the American nation. In the interest of promoting that goal, the following is a Question and Answer presentation about the Iraq War.
More than five years after the commencement of the Iraq War, the decision to invade remains a hot political issue. Unfortunately, pundits on both sides of the issue continue to discuss the history and background of the invasion in varying degrees of ignorance. The Iraq War is the defining political issue of our day, impacting American foreign and domestic policies, economic and social concerns, and affecting nearly all Americans in one way or another.
As the presidential election inches closer and closer, the presumptive nominees continue to circulate rhetoric on either side of the issue. Although the war continues to be a reality, and we can no longer debate whether or not to invade Iraq, the discussion of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq has become a battle of conflicting philosophies and judgments. Sen. Obama criticizes Sen. McCain for both supporting the war in the first place, and for supporting the troop surge. (Why Obama's adherence to the typical Left-wing position of the day when he was an Illinois state senator is evidence of political bravery, or singularly excellent judgment, is another question entirely.) Meanwhile, Sen. McCain cites Obama's opposition to the surge, and Obama's ultimately incorrect assertions at the time that it would do nothing to stop the violence in Iraq, as evidence that the freshman senator from Illinois lacks the judgment to assume the mantle of Commander-in-Chief. As the economy appears to be showing signs of a slow recovery, foreign policy could be the major issue of this election.
Because the Iraq War is such a dominant issue, it's important that voters are informed as they listen to the candidates, make their decisions, and go to the polls. America's Founding Fathers wisely desired an educated, discerning, responsible electorate in order to safeguard the existence and excellence of the American nation. In the interest of promoting that goal, the following is a Question and Answer presentation about the Iraq War.
* * *
Q: Isn't the war in Iraq all about oil?
A: It would have been much easier to ease the sanctions on Iraq and import Iraqi oil legally (albeit immorally). While Iraqi oil, and the petroleum resources in the broader Middle East were certainly factors, saying that the Iraq War was a war for oil is every bit as simplistic as saying that the American Civil War was about slavery; and the latter statement is more accurate than the former. The Middle East is a strategic area because of its impact on international economy security and stability, and because many areas within the region breed violent extremism and terrorism. If the war was initiated purely for the purpose of securing oil stocks, why did President Bush exhaust his diplomatic options prior to invading? In 1998, American and British forces waged a four day bombing campaign against Iraq's alleged weapons infrastructure without so much as holding a hearing at the United Nations Security Council. Does it really make sense for President Bush to have gone to all of the diplomatic trouble of trying to force Iraqi compliance and oust the Hussein regime peacefully if he was only after the oil? If that had been the case, such an outcome could have been achieved much easier.
Q: Didn't President Bush invade Iraq because he wanted revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to have his father killed?
A: What's more likely, that the Iraq War was some giant revenge conspiracy, or that Iraq had been a continual problem for several decades, drawing the attention of four American presidents? If Bush's only target was Saddam Hussein, why didn't he have covert CIA operatives infiltrate Iraq, hunt Hussein down, and assassinate him? The Bush/Saddam Revenge theory may be very scandalous and exciting, but there is no evidence to back it up.
Q: Wasn't the invasion of Iraq prompted solely by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, because of their shady business interests?
A: While President Bush and Vice President Cheney have ties to big business, this has more to do with the versatility of leadership skills and networking. Unless someone provides hard evidence of a conspiracy (and despite attempts by conspiracy theorists, partisan journalists, and overzealous political opponents, this real evidence has failed to materialize), this claim will remain nothing more than a conspiracy theory. However, the French and Russians, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War, were found on numerous occasions to have had shady dealings with the Hussein Regime that most likely influenced their policies of opposition to the 2003 invasion. Russian diplomats unsuccessfully tipped the Iraqis off to American operational plans, a Russian company sold GPS jammers to Iraq, and numerous French officials were indicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Also, some might remember that it was the French who sold the Iraqis a nuclear reactor in the 1980s, before it was destroyed in an Israeli air raid. A greater deal of evidence exists for corruption among Iraq War opponents than for Iraq War participants.
Q: Didn't America supply weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? All of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction were American in origin anyway, so what moral or legal authority did America have to invade Iraq?
A: The American government provided minimal assistance to Iraq during the 1980s because Iraq was seen (accurately at the time) as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq War. Some estimates put American contributions at less than one percent of international arms sales to Iraq during the period in question; this is why Iraqi forces were operating Soviet-made MiG aircraft and T-72 tanks in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Iraq was a socialist state, and a Soviet client nation. American ties to Iraq were never especially strong; although some dual-use sales were highly questionable, the level of support for Iraq from America has been vastly overstated by critics of the United States. In addition, many forget the context in which Western nations cooperated with Iraq in the 1980s. This cooperation was directed against Iran, which had taken American diplomats hostage, and carried out the offensive military operations in the Persian Gulf that led to Operations Earnest Will, Nimble Archer, and Operation Praying Mantis. In spite of the naive foreign policy philosophy of the likes of former President Carter, the United States can't always rely solely on mainstream allies like the United Kingdom and Japan; sometimes, in the face of grave threats like the Soviet Union and Iran, American governments must work with less than noble regimes in order to protect American security.
Q: The 2003 invasion was the right war at the wrong time. If Hussein was going to be removed, shouldn't it have happened in 1991?
A: The Iraq War of 2003 very well could have been prevented by regime change in 1991. However, the original 1991 United Nations mandate was limited to liberating Kuwait - no contingency for carrying out justice against the Iraqi regime was allowed. Had the Coalition continued with a direct campaign against Iraq itself, coalition members such as Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates would have withdrawn their support in protest. After 9/11, the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's support for international terrorism outweighed the threat of opposition from Iraq's neighbors. So, while a solution in 1991 would likely have been better than the same solution in 2003, international politics partially driven by security concerns about Iran (a radical Persian Shia state among Sunni Arab neighbors) prevented a decisive solution at that time. Also, had Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay taken over upon his death, the situation could have been worse than it had been under Saddam. As horrible as the Hussein regime was, it was seen by many to provide stability in the political chess game of the Middle East. Many also forget that the 1991 Persian Gulf War occurred mere months before the collapse of the Soviet Union, meaning that Western forces were unable to commit the majority of their military assets to a single small-scale conflict in light of the continued threat from Moscow. As with the aforementioned issue of Iran, historical context is important.
Q: Didn't Ambassador Joe Wilson refute President Bush's claims that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger?
A: This situation is admittedly messy, but the bottom line is that many in authority discount Joe Wilson's credibility, the accuracy of his statements, and his objectivity. Subsequent investigations seem to confirm that the Iraqi government sought yellowcake uranium from Niger prior to the 2003 invasion (link, link). At any rate, President Bush's statement during the 2003 State of the Union address reported only what British intelligence had reported to American officials; this may sound nit-picky, but semantics are important in matters of international politics. The issue of yellowcake will be addressed in greater detail later.
Q: Wasn't the intelligence that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented at the Security Council in 2003 overplayed and inaccurate?
A: Every intelligence agency in the world agreed on the existence of illicit Iraqi weapons, and the intelligence provided by the State Department in early 2003 was the best intelligence available from the American and British intelligence agencies. The answer is most likely somewhere in the middle: that the intelligence was accurate, but that Saddam Hussein was also being deceptive in order to make Iran believe that he possessed more than what was actually stockpiled. What's more likely: that the entire world was wrong about Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons, or that the illicit materials were removed in the months leading up to the invasion? This will be addressed in greater detail later.
Q: Didn't they fail to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
A: Hundreds of chemical and biological rounds have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. In addition, an Iraqi chemical weapons lab was found in 2005. In 2004, Danish troops found chemical-ready artillery rounds; although they were later determined to have no chemical residue, why would the Hussein regime keep chemical rounds if it didn't intend to reconstitute its illicit weapons programs?
Relating specifically to Iraq's nuclear ambitions, Iraqi uranium oxide ("yellowcake") was found in a shipment of scrap metal in Rotterdam in January of 2004. In 2008, a secret program relocated more than five hundred metric tons of Iraqi yellowcake to Canada (link, link). Yellowcake is caustic, reactive, and slightly radioactive. The only reason to keep it around, particularly in such large quantities, is to fuel a nuclear program.
Q: Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, they couldn't have possibly been moved; could they?
A: The lengthy lead-up to the Iraq War provided ample opportunity for Hussein to arrange removal of illicit weapons. One example of this is the possible removal of weapons, explosives, and documents by Russian operatives directly prior to the 2003 invasion; note the previous assistance the Iraqis received from the Russians, and imagine the fallout Russia would have faced if invading forces had found illegal Russian contributions to Iraq's weapons programs. Remember, for all of their disputes, pre-war Iraq and Syria were both Baathist (Arab Nationalist) states. What's more likely: that the Iraqis destroyed their remaining weapons on good faith both before and after deceiving and ousting the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspectors, or that the Hussein regime used the time to temporarily (or so they hoped) spirit their illicit supplies away to allied nations for safe keeping? The HMX that disappeared from the al Qaqaa depot can be used in the development of nuclear weapons - it was forbidden for Iraq to possess under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Doesn't this seem more like evidence of a nascent nuclear program than a coincidental dual-use material, particularly given the fact that it was being stored at a weapons depot?
Q: The Iraqis had no ties to al Qaeda. How could Iraq have been any kind of threat to the United States?
A: There is a difference between al Qaeda and 9/11; there is strong evidence for an operational link between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda, even though Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. (For the record, the Bush Administration never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11, only that they were investigating the possibility; again, semantics are important in international politics.) The Hussein regime was one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism; most people don't realize that terrorism goes beyond Osama bin Laden, and that the various Islamist terrorist groups are nearly all related in one way or another. Hussein publicly funded Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. These groups have been listed since at least as far back as the Clinton administration as foreign terrorist groups that threaten America's national security and interests, according to a list published by the State Department. While the public face of the war revolved around illegal weapons, it was Hussein's support for terrorist organizations that was the biggest threat, and the reason for the coalition invasion.
Q: Wasn't Saddam Hussein contained? How could he have possibly threatened the region or the rest of the world?
A: Aside from his aforementioned sponsorship of terrorist organizations, the Hussein regime had launched unprovoked, unilateral attacks on Israel and Kuwait. Iraq also initiated an eight year war against Iran in which the Iraqi regime used chemical and biological weapons. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraqi military forces made frequent attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the UN mandated No-Fly zones. Hussein was also able to smuggle in illegal contraband, just not as quickly as before. Hussein's options may have been limited under the sanctions, but his containment was far from complete.
Q: The Iraqis were under no threat from Saddam Hussein. Weren't Iraqi citizens better off before the war?
A: Under Hussein, the Iraqi government carried out a systematic program of destruction against the Kurds and Shii. This included employment of chemical and biological weapons in the late 1980s. The Hussein regime had a well documented history of torturing and murdering dissidents and undesirables. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Hussein regime systematically corrupted the UN Oil-for-Food program; a program designed to feed the Iraqi people during punitive sanctions was perverted for the benefit of the Hussein regime, United Nations officials, and foreign agencies that provided illicit materials to Iraq illegally. While the average lifespan for an Iraqi citizen declined sharply after 1991 and the infant mortality rate climbed, the Iraqi government built palaces for Saddam Hussein while simultaneously importing contraband materials. A case for intervention could probably have been made on the basis of the humanitarian reasons alone; as a result, the opposition to the war from so-called humanitarian and human rights organizations is puzzling. While the violent impact of the war on common Iraqi citizens is horrible, one might think that these organizations would see Hussein's ouster as an opportunity to promote human rights and humanitarian assistance to the beleaguered Iraqis, particularly in light of the termination of the international sanctions that had led to a sharp decline in the state of the Iraqi people.
Q: Wasn't the Iraq War illegal? Didn't it violate international law?
A: Legal authority for the 2003 invasion went beyond UNSC Resolution 1441. Authority existed from Saddam Hussein's violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire treaty. Coalition withdrawal was legally contingent upon Saddam Hussein's full compliance with the pertinent UN Security Council resolutions. Aside from being non-compliant with UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait), Iraq was non-compliant with 17 UNSC resolutions over the course of 12 years. Admittedly, an air of vigilantism exists, but legal authority existed for the 2003 invasion based on Hussein's near-complete material breach of the aforementioned resolutions. The Iraq War was an enforcement of international law, not a violation of international law. Because of Iraq's failure to comply, the 2003 invasion could technically be seen as a continuation or completion of the 1991 war.
* * *
The world will watch with bated breath as Americans choose the next leader of the free world. As President Bush has shown, the character, judgment, and values of an American president have a profound impact on the current and future course of world events. Whoever Americans choose to succeed President Bush, the world can only hope that the collective decision of the American electorate is based on solid knowledge and understanding.
--
Jean-Louis Kayitenkore
Procurement Consultant
Gsm: +250-08470205
Home: +250-55104140
P.O. Box 3867
Kigali-Rwanda
East Africa
Blog: http://www.cepgl.blogspot.com
Skype ID : Kayisa66
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment