Burningbird: Iraq and goals

October 08, 2002

I listened to the President's speech on Iraq last night. I'm not surprised at the familiar refrain of Saddam Hussein being an evil man, nor was I surprised about the tie-in with September 11th.

There was a strongly inconsistent message in the President's speech that I'm a bit surprised no one seems to have noted. President Bush emphasized the need for Iraq to disarm, but also brought into the message questions about terrorism, treatment of its people, and other factors outside of the original UN security resolution:

And that is why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously. Those resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. And it must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

The confusion about the focus of our goals was further enhanced by direct attacks on Saddam Hussein:

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and within his own army, and even within his own family.

What are our goals? Do we want to disarm Iraq? Or do we want to depose Saddam Hussein? The former is within the charter of UN sercurity resolutions, the latter is not. Sending arms inspectors back and allowing them unfettered access will, hopefully, result in disarmament, but won't remove Hussein from office.

Which does the President want? Disarmament? Or Hussein? There's a world of difference between these two. A word of difference.

In the meantime, if you want your views known, contact your Congressional representatives. I would also recommend that you contact your local politicians (mayor, governor, and so on). And you might want to consider joining whatever demonstrations are happening in your area that support your viewpoint.

Bb on October 08, 2002 03:22 AM

Backtracks (Pings sent with this entry):

Click on each item to Backtrack the Trackback:

Trackbacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: http://burningbird.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/82)

Comments

>>Which does the President want? Disarmament? Or
>>Hussein? There's a world of difference between
>>these two. A word of difference

The question is whether one is possible without the other.

Lets assume for a minute that Saddam does have weapons he shouldnt have. Will he just hand them over? Will he aid the weapons inspectors in finding weapons he claims he doesnt have? (remember that until 1995, Iraq claimed they had no chemical weapons... until his son in law defected and told the weapons inspectors where to find them). I think it is exceedingly difficult to effectively disarm a country that is actively engaged in arming itself.

I think there no ambiguity - the Bush administration want to see the end of Saddam. They are currently softening their tone, in order to appease international concerns, but ultimately, they want to see him go.

However, as you rightly say, it would be a disturbing precedence to set - for a country to remove the leader of another. You could imagine the Russians doing the same in Georgia - you could imagine China fixing its sights on Taiwan... its not a pretty picture.

However, its a complex issue. The problem is not solved by standing back and saying "peace at all costs".
We know that within our own legal systems we have common sense obscured by the law. E.g. We may know about a stalker, but the police cannot do anything until he is caught having done something. If that "something" is murder... then its kinda too late.

In my opinion, we are bound for conflict with Iraq - and Saddam is ensuring this as much as people might claim that Washington is.

For the rest of the world, its a choice of timing: Act now, before it gets out of hand - or later when we might be facing a nuclear-armed Saddam...

These are my personal views at least...

Posted by: Nick on October 9, 2002 07:33 PM

I can only agree, Nick. Our battle cry should be, "Remember Neville Chamberlain!" You can't negotiate peace with people like this. And I have to cringe when I hear people suggest that we should exhaust every possible diplomatic possibility before going to war. We've just spent 11 years exhausting the possibilities. It didn't work. He needs to be taken out.

Posted by: Jason Clouse on October 12, 2002 12:22 AM

The UN is a farce. If sanctions are going to be enforced against Iraq, they should be enforced against Israel and other countries too.

Saddam was supported in his rise to power by the US. He comitted his worst atrocities (gassing of Kurds, etc.) while he was a 'friend' of the US. He *instigated* a bloody decade long war w/ Iran at the behest of, and with the arms of, the US.

Given US history, it is impossible to accept an American stateman's statements that he is motivated by a desire to bring peace and democracy to Arab countries. Why does the US support brutal puppet regimes like that of Turkey and Saudi Arabia then? Why give legitimacy to the dictator Musharraf?

The US is concerned with one thing and one thing alone: US interests. Human rights, democracy, womens' rights, these are merely window dressing used whenever convenenient to mislead the American public and garner popular support.

I know a few thousand dead New Yorkers who have already paid the price for American foreign policy/imnperialism. Until the US changes it's imperialistic goals, it will be the target of attacks by those who it has wronged.

Posted by: Avi on October 12, 2002 03:10 PM