Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer, in today's Australian
But, of course, if the international community knew early last year what it knows now about Saddam's WMD programs, there would have been less debate in the Security Council about the appropriate action. Kay's report shows that removing Saddam was the only way the international community could be assured that he would no longer threaten anyone with WMDs. Far from unstuck, the WMD case is proven.
Kay’s report showed that Saddam still sought WMD, but it suggests that sanctions were keeping him from getting them.
Sanctions weren’t going to last. France, Germany and Russia wanted them dropped in January of 2002. (Before the big Bush/UN fight I note). Saddam had turned starving his own people ‘because of the sanctions’ as a great way to gain sympathy.
Since sanctions were unsustainable, it seems likely to me that getting rid of Saddam was the only way to assure ourselves that Saddam wouldn’t get banned weapons.
I look forward to those who have talked about the awful effect of sanctions on Iraq’s poor people now suggesting that sanctions were going to continue indefinitely. Shall I preemtively mention the interestingly administered and poorly named ‘UN Food for Oil’ program?
Why are all-inclusive sanctions neccessary to prevent Saddam from developing nukes, Mr. Holsclaw?
These sanctions seemed to be so effective that they denied him the ability to make even limited amounts of half-century old military tech.
Remember, Kay’s report was also filled with lots of weasel phrases, to please his masters. What was one of them? ‘Small, unorganized research efforts to establish a scientific base for future programs’(quote from memory), which could describe reading a physics textbook.
Kay also used the phrase (I think separately from his report), ‘we are still pursuing evidence of WMD program-related activities.
In the end, it wasn’t there. All else is BS to explain away that absence.
Sebastian, as usual, completely misses the facts: Since Hans Blix and his people were proving there were no WMD in Iraq, once his final report was tendered, there would have been no reason to continue sanctions. The Bush regime, caring not a whit about the suffering of the poor anywhere in the world, let alone Iraq or America, would have voted to continue sanctions, but civilized nations like France, Germany, and Russia would have ended them. There is no real evidence that Saddam was seriously looking for WMD.
I think it’s right that many people, governments and intelligence services thought before the war that Iraq has no large stockpiles of WMDs.
But I think no Western government thought that Iraq had no WMD at all.
So here’s a task:
Please find a statement by the German or French government published before the war started which contains a sentence like “Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction”.
I’ve searched the websites of the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, and his Foreign Secretary, Joschka Fischer. No sign here.
Mr CT Reader
What exactly do you mean by Weapons of Mass Destruction?
ct reader, If such a statement could not be found, wouldn’t that only prove that the French and Germans are more careful than their American counterparts about making unwarranted categorical assertions?
“There is no real evidence that Saddam was seriously looking for WMD.” You haven’t read the Kay report then. There is plenty of evidence that he was looking to obtain WMD. What is lacking is evidence that he was successful in obtaining WMD. The inference is that sanctions did little to control his desire, but apparently much to control his ability to act on that desire. Since sanctions were ending, I stand by what I wrote above.
Would that be WMD as in nuclear weapons, Mr. Holsclaw?
i refer you to the article in The Weekly Standard by Kagan and Kristol. They quote Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger as to exactly what they believed Saddam would do after sanctions were lifted. And that is why the Clinton administration advocated regime change in Iraq as our national policy. Saddam, himself, was the ultimate WMD
That would be the Atomic, Biological and Chemical weapons which he was banned from having and seeking.
all these people who care about the iraqi people so much and wanted the sanctions to end couldn’t give a damn that the iraqis are most grateful for saddam’s removal from power. hippercrites. here’s a nice tribute from an iraqi artist to the american soldiers:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/kalat.asp
Here are few quotes from Blix in 2003:
“As we know, the twin operation ‘declare and verify’, which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of ‘hide and seek’.”
“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance-not even today-of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”
(is there an implication of war in that last statement)
The point, of course, is that Kay’s findings were exactly those of Blix a year ago, that there were no weapons of mass destruction or means for delivering them. What we know now is no different than what we knew then.
In a way it’s reassuring to learn that it isn’t only American leaders who assert “I was right!” and reason backwards from there.
So, Sebastian, if I understand well; If Saddam had WMDs then war was justified and if Saddam had not WMDs then war was justified too because he would have gotten them once sanctions were dropped. ¿Could someone tell me then what role had WMDs in the war (seem pretty irrelevant to me) and ¿Why bother with sanctions and inspections if all that mattered were Saddam’s future intentions? It makes some kind of sense (in a perverted, Stalinistic way).
¿Could someone tell me then what role had WMDs in the war (seem pretty irrelevant to me) and ¿Why bother with sanctions and inspections if all that mattered were Saddam’s future intentions?
A scared populace (and legislature) is easier to push into war. Simple as that.
But I think no Western government thought that Iraq had no WMD at all.
If I didn’t get it all wrong (because it is getting confusing…), I thought it had been established that, according to all the previous UN resolutions, the failure on the part the Iraqi regime to prove they had destroyed all WMD’s (and the failure to prove they were not entertaining new WMD programs) was enough for them to be in violation of those previous UN resolutions. Hence, enough for intervention. So, even if what the Australian Prime Minister is saying sounds like a joke at this stage, it’s actually correct…
The problem is that governments, as usual thinking they had to present their arguments in front of a mass of idiots, made a mess of explaining that case, and so the requirement for intervention turned from “failure to prove destruction of those weapons” to “need to prove the existence of weapons”.
The case for the UN itself to decide for intervention was very clear. In fact, the UNSC did decide there was ground for intervention, only they decided not to decide which kind of intervention to choose. Because countries in the SC, Russia and Germany and France, had all the financial and strategical interests not to remove Saddam’s regime even if the case for intervention was there and they’d agreed to it.
But even if there was a case for military intervention (and not just in terms of WMD but security strategies as well), it could have been handled a lot better and more coherently by those who carried it out. When you got your own intelligence services contradicting you and making you look like an idiot, that’s your own problem to solve. When you, instead of keeping to a coherent presentation of your case, move from one argument to the other and then end up with yielding to the reversal of the original case, and come up with a farcical enquiry commission into something that had already been enquired at and decided in the UN… well you’ve screwed it up really bad.
Ginger:
“…. thought it had been established that, according to all the previous UN resolutions, the failure on the part the Iraqi regime to prove they had destroyed all WMD’s (and the failure to prove they were not entertaining new WMD programs) was enough for them to be in violation of those previous UN resolutions. Hence, enough for intervention.”
Wow. Time to get out the list of those who violate UN resolutions, and get to work. Who are we invading this year?
Barry
Barry: hmm, how about my neighbours, in violations of resolutions about playing techno on Sunday mornings…
Seriously, what I meant is that the resolutions had stated the requirements was to prove destruction of wmd, not existence.
Of course whether intervention is decided or not in the UNSC, and of which type - diplomatic or military - is not taken for granted. Each case is different. And it’s always about interpretation. So you have a good point there, eh…
But, whatever one thinks of the whole thing, the fact is that everyone had agreed to resolutions up to 1441, so they can’t really reverse the terms is was based on. And that “they” includes the governments who supported the military action. It’s rather disappointing that they’re now getting caught up in their own muddled arguments.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review