[HPFGU-OTChatter] Invasion to Iraq (was Re: UN intervention (was Animal Farm)

[Shaun Hately]

On 29 Sep 2004 at 9:59, naamagatus wrote:

> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" 
> <drednort at a...> wrote:
> > 
> > Whether intervention was a good idea or not is something that will 
> > be debated for decades. But it is not at all likely that France 
> > would have come on board after six months - unless Weapons of Mass 
> > Destruction had been found (or worse used). And as we haven't been 
> > able to find them even after invading, it seems unlikely 
> > inspections would have found anything.
> 
> Which seems to show that there were never any WMDs at all . I don't 
> know whether I'm reading you correctly, but do you think that Iraq 
> should have been invaded *regardless* of the WMD issue? 

Well, personally I'm not convinced that there were no WMDs. Please 
understand that this something I have had to study, so my opinion 
isn't just coming from nowhere on this. I haven't just read 
newspaper reports, I have read the full published reports of bodies 
such as UNSCOM.

I think it's unlikely there were any very large stockpiles. However 
there were certainly small amounts of some substances (because they 
have been found) and there may well have been small stockpiles that 
were moved out of Iraq (most likely to Syria, with or without the 
cooperation of the Syrian government - hopefully with, as I'm much 
more comfortable with this material in the Syrian governments hands 
than I am in the hands of certain other groups). But these 
stockpiles, if they existed, were almost certainly moved prior to 
the time that any inspectors would have found them.

There could also still be stockpiles in Iraq - weapons caches from 
World War II are still being found in Germany today. For that 
matter, there are pesistant rumours of World War II chemical 
weapons stored somewhere under Melbourne, Australia (where I live) 
- finding every trace, every cache is difficult. Large scale caches 
in Iraq are fairly unlikely - but I wouldn't be astounded if 
something was found.

Part of the problem is that Iraq has admitted to having had certain 
stockpiles of weapons in the past - and the amounts of certain 
chemical agents that they admitted having would leave clear 
evidence of their destruction if they'd been destroyed. The weapons 
inspectors were not just tasked with finding weapons, but also 
evidence of destruction - and so far, as well as having found no 
large stockpiles of weapons they also found anywhere near enough 
evidence of destruction to indicate the weapons are destroyed. You 
can't just pour most of this stuff down a drain, and in some case, 
Iraq had tonnes of the material.

But to get to your question, I think Saddam Hussein needed to be 
removed from office. It is clear that even if Iraq didn't have any 
current stores of weapons of mass destruction, it maintained plans 
to begin development again if it ever got the opportunity, and Iraq 
therefore still posed a real potential threat (even if it was not 
an actual threat). Saddam Hussein was also a brutal dictator who 
murdered many thousands of his own citizens, and as a matter of 
principle I believe such pople should be removed from power.

Yes, there have been worse dictators than Saddam Hussein in Iraq, 
and the world has sat back and watched them. But in the case of 
Iraq there was a clear difference. And that clear difference is 
that the UN Security Council had taken some action. I am entirely 
in favour of the United Nations Security Council working to avoid 
war. I am absolutely in favour of the UN Security Council trying to 
resolve these issues through diplomatic means, and I wish the 
Security Council would do so more often. But there are limits.

The Security Council tried for twelve years to resolve this matter 
with measures short of total war. It tried diplomatic pressure, it 
tried offering incentives, it tried sanctions of various forms, and 
it sanctioned limited surgical strikes.

In this case, none of those methods worked - in others they might 
have done. Iraq actually represents one of the rare occasions that 
the UN Security Council functioned as it was designed to do - up 
until 2002. But it was always clearly envisaged that if the 
measures short of war failed, the UN Security Council would 
sanction war to remove a government or to deal with a potential 
threat.

The whole system is based on the understanding that, in the final 
analysis, the Security Council will back military action if all 
else failed. When the Security Council fails to act on that 
understanding, it greatly reduces its effectiveness. Nothing is 
less effective than a threat that will not be carried out.

The fundamental problem is the veto system. Now there are reasons 
why the veto system exists. It was necessary to get the USSR (and 
to a lesser extent the US) to sign onto the UN Charter - and it was 
critical to ensure both those nations were involved, as the League 
of Nations failed partly because of the absence of a major power. 
But what it means is that the Security Council - a body of 15 
members, with 5 permanent members - can be crippled by one nation. 
A vote of 14-1 in favour of something will fail - if the one is the 
US, Russia, France, China or the UK.

Unanimity in world affairs if extremely unusual.

Because the interim steps had been tried over the 12 years, if the 
state of affairs in Iraq had been allowed to continue, it would 
have sent a clear message to the world that in the final analysis, 
the UN Security Council would not take action. And nobody else 
would either.

I would have preferred the UN Security Council to have discharged 
its duties. But it didn't.

And I would have preferred, if possible, another way had been found 
to remove Saddam Hussein - but it's difficult to see any way that 
might have worked at this point, short of assasination - and 
historically, that has virtually never worked well. And in his 
case, it's rather likely his successor would have been just as bad.

If this ever happens again, I think the United Nations Security 
Council will probably work - because its members now understand 
that failure to act, means being rendered irrelevant (and the 
Security Council was virtually rendered irrelevant and impotent - 
it wouldn't sanction war but it was incapable of condemning it 
either).

But it's also now clearly understood that even if the UN Security 
Council is impotent, nations cannot assume that that means they 
will be allowed to do what they like within their own borders, with 
impunity.

I believed there were large stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. It appears 
I was wrong. I find that fact slightly embarassing - I don't like 
being fooled anymore than anyone else does - but in the end, I 
think the removal of Saddam Hussein was a massive positive.

My opinion on that may change as events unfold in Iraq. The 
security situation needs to be brought under control - and it isn't 
brought under control to a much greater extent over the next year, 
that will be a massive indictment of the invasion.

But personally I think it will be brought under control.

War should always be a last resort - but when you've tried 
mesasures short of war for 12 years, there's a time when somebody 
has to admit that what is being tried isn't working.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia