RSSThey’re still trying to make an argument for the invasion?
Oct 14
I posted this on an email thread at work, in response to the posting of the article “Have War Critics Even Read the Duelfer Report?”
———
The problem with this report, as with everything else surrounding the invasion of Iraq, is that it is steeped in hypocracy. Many countries throughout the world, including allies of the US, currently have chemical (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_wmd_che) and nuclear weapons (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_wmd_nuc). So what’s the difference in Iraq? It’s very easy to build the argument that Iran or North Korea pose a much more iminent threat than Iraq did, even knowing what was public at the time. I think most of us have a gut feeling as to the real reaons.
I’m still suprised that people are still actively trying to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the argument has been reduced to:
a) Sidestepping the issue and asking “Are you not happy Saddam is gone?” The US legal system doesn’t allow this childish argument for killing any kind of criminal so the rest of us shouldn’t either.
b) He had the “potential” and the “desire/willingness” to develop weapons. Every other country in the world has the potential to develop weapons, and a lot more than the declared “axis of evil” have the desire. Hell, I have the potential to develop chemical/biological weapons in my basement (if I had one).
So, this report tells us that Iraq was trying to find new ways to develop chemical weapons. Let’s ask ourselves: do you feel safer knowing Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT signed by 187 countries, or that Iraq was trying to develop a new type of Mustard gas? I know my answer to that question, as does the US government, except when it happens to apply to a “strategic ally.” Especially considering Pakistan is governed by a military dictator, has publically acknowledged sales of nuclear materials to other countries, and Israel sends assault aircraft to shoot into crowds of civilians (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/07/mideast_mon021007).
In fact, the US is currently in violation of the NPT by it’s pursuit of “a new generation of nuclear weapons, including ‘mini-nukes’, ‘bunker-busters’ and neutron bombs.”
Quoting from http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0311-NPT.html
Under Article II of the Treaty, the U.S. agreed:
not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
So in summary the purpose of the NPT was to ensure that countries do not go on producing more nuclear weapons. Yet the rest of the world knows the US is now developing new types. Do you think this will increase or decrease the number of other states around the world that feel threatened and come to the conclusion that they also require nuclear weapons? As has come to light over the last several years it is obviously increasing. I don’t think Iran, North Korea, India or Pakistan have visions of suddenly throwing nukes all over the planet in some doomsday MAD scenario. They want them as a political tool and, for some or all of those, as protection against the US. They see it as the best way to stop themselves from becoming the next Iraq as it’s the only thing that could make the US think twice about invading them.
The Bush administration (that has many senior positions filled by people dating back or predating the Reagen era) needs to get out of their cold-war ideology. They don’t seem to understand that more nuclear weapons is not going to dissuade terrorists. This is just one more example of the extreme failure of Bush to properly address the issues in the “war on terror.” It’s too bad, for the people of this country, that the media has let itself be used to tie Iraq into the “war on terror.”
Oct 15, 2004 @ 11:02:02
I see only one difference between Iraq and the many other countries that have developed or purchased WMDs in the last 20 years, including France, every G8 country except Canada, most Mideast countries, and Asian countries except Japan:
Iraq has actually demonstrated a willingness to deploy such weapons. In the 80′s, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran during their military conflict and also used them as rapid genocide tools against ethnic Kurds inside Iraq.
Thus, it is arguable that the possession of any WDMs by Iraq poses a larger threat than most other countries whose only motivation is deterence via the widely successful Reagan-era philosopy of mutually assured destruction.
Of course, the hypocracy (and irony) of the US using this arguement is obvious to most objective observers who cite the publicly documented facts that the WMDs used by Iraq in those cases were purchased from the US and the US condoned their use in those situations based on its stance against Iran at the time.
The US may argue that it did not condone the use of WMDs on Kurdish refugees, however Donald Rumsfeld and the Republicans of the era knew of those incidents when they occurred and deliberately ignored them in support of the Hussein Regime. 20 years later, Donald Rumsfeld presented those incidents as evidence for regime change.
The moral of this story is that regimes that wish to pursue ethnic cleansing should not use WMDs. The use of such weapons is easy to detect and raises the ire of other countries. Such regimes should take a lesson from Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughter each day with nothing more than guns and machetes. Or China’s ongoing military slaughter of Buddists in Tibet. Or Darfur, where the black population is currently beseiged by the Muslim guerillas the Janjaweed, who routinely ride into small black villages, murder everyone in sight, allowing for kidnapping handfuls of women for later gangrape and murder. In that case, the country’s government subtly supports the Janjaweed militia while publicly denouncing the acts.
Historically, committing ethnic cleansing in this manor slows the response of the international community to a crawl. The UN is still trying to decide if the events in Darfur are officially genocide. Even if they do agree on that, intervention will be far too late to change the fate of the local population.
WMDs come in two varieties: close combat weapons (bio/chemo) and widespread damage (nuke). The latter tend to lend themselves well to the MAD paradigm, while the former are versatile enough to be safely deployed against a variety of undesirables.