Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Visiting this issue one more time seems appropriate in light of the current geopolitical situation and the recent speech by the US President stating that containment of Iraq is no longer and option and that peaceful negotiations are in their final stages.

Currently a US led war with Iraq is inevitable. The troop buildup, the preparations, etc. The US will not leave the middle east without fighting a war to remove Saddam Hussein. That has been pre-determined, regardless of the outcome of anything in the UN or around the world. The war is a forgone conclusion. However, justification of that war is not.

I applaud the US administration for attempting to work with the UN. I also applaud the US administration for putting some focus back on Iraq. Whether or not you are for or against a war effort some credit is due to George W. Bush and his administration for bringing this issue to the forefront. That said I also think the Bush administration could have accomplished those same goals, focus on the issue and international cooperation through the UN, in an ENTIRELY different manner and gotten MUCH BETTER RESULTS.

From the outset the Bush administration was not interested in the UN and was basically forced by international pressure to not only acknowledge it but work within it. Without all the rhetoric and posturing and basically juvenile level threats and "chicken calling" (for lack of a better term), the US administration could have led an international effort (especially in the wake of post US terrorist attack sentiment) that encouraged dialgue and action on the Iraq issue without ending up anywhere near where they are. Where they are is at the end of the line and the rest of the nations and people of the world in disagreement with them (yes, I said the rest of the world, even in Britian and Spain public sentiment is overwhelmingly AGAINST the war even though the governments "support" it).

So basically the bottom line is that the US has squandered the international good will after the US terrorist attacks, dissolved any previous foreign relationships that existed from years of prior work and has even managed to in many cases actually alienate themselves from the rest of the world and many foreign governments. Why? Besides the stumbling along claiming "we can do what we want" excuse, why this approach, why is the issue so paramount? Its not just the approach, there must be a real reason driving the direction of the US administration, right?

Well Bush presented the case last night in his speech. Why the raised international tensions, why the tumult at the UN, why the eroded foreign relations? Why all the troops in the middle east already and war imminent? Because Saddam Hussein supports terrorism and could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Thats the case presented.

Well, personally, I think that is false and therefore a VERY weak case and in no way any type of justification for the actions of the US adminstration. After ALL of the efforts of the US and many other intelligence agencies around the world there is ZERO proof of any Iraqi tie to terrorism. The one Al Queda leader who got medical attention in Iraq is not proof, there is no indication that the Iraqi government was ever even aware he was there (and certainly an Al Queda member being in your country alone is not an act of collusion or the US would be more guilty because they have arrested many people with alleged ties on their own soil). There is just no proof that Saddam is a terrorist or has terrorist ties.

Saddam Hussein is a TERRIBLE human being. He has committed many crimes, many atrocities against his own people, invaded another nation, done despicable things like hide military targets near or amongst civilians, etc, but there is no tie to Al Queda or other terrorist organizations. Also even the allegation makes no sense. These groups stand for completely different idealogies and have different methods, backgrounds, etc. Even in the absence of proof the question should be asked "is a tie likely" and the answer is a resounding no (well it was, in light of all the talk of an alignment certainly men from both groups have now considered it?).

No one around the world disputes that Sadaam Hussein (and his regime) is dangerous. No one disputes that they are in violation of UN resolutions.

Many nations are in violation of UN resolutions (just a quick search on Google displays that Israel is in violation of MANY and yet where is the outcry?). The UN itself is not a military organization. It is a humanitarian and political organization. The UN is a group of nations working together to decide a course of action and justification for those actions and RECOMMEND a way to carry out those actions. The fact that many nations are in violations of resolutions and there have been little or no consequnces in many cases is a viable issue within the UN. This is an issue that the UN should address (reform of the UN is not outside the scope of possibility). However, to simply say that the UN is ineffective or meaningless because of this is ridiculous and ignores the long history of positive change the UN has been involved in. The UN is by no means perfect, but it has a history of performing well in an ultra complicated world in a time when global cooperation and agreement is imperative (for socioeconomic, political, and other reasons). Sometimes the world community does agree and the UN does condone and even recommend the use of force. It is rare (as it probably should be?), but it does happen, and it takes a pre-determined set of actions in which a majority of nations on the security council AGREE with the actions and none veto the action. These rules have been decided long before a conflict happens. The UN in its current involvment in the Iraq situation is working EXACTLY as it was designed to work and as it should. When another nation disagrees with the stance of the US that does not mean the UN is broken, it simply means the UN is working properly and keeping a nation that has not justified its military aspirations to the world in check. That check of course is only political but that is all the UN is designed to do, come to global agreements or not, and then endorse or not endorse the actions of member nations. The US WILL decide to go it alone but that does not justify doing so and in fact will further damage many US foreign relations around the world.

Personally in all of this I simply wish that the US adminstration would provide some of the "proof" that they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (the pictures of guys with trucks and radio conversations being suspicious activity, but not even near proof). I think if there was proof that there would be no dispute and that the UN would approve military action. I also think that Iraq DOES HAVE these banned weapons of mass destruction. Various US adminstration officials including the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State keep reiterating that they have PROOF from "reliable sources" but at the same time they state they cannot divulge it? Proof that you cannot divulge is NOT PROOF, its hearsay, and its as inadmissable when you get a speeding ticket as it is when you are deciding to go to war. Sure there may be issues with security with divulging information, but between the UN inspectors and the world intelligence community including the US surely there is a way to divulge where some of the banned weapons are? Surely there is some contigency whereby if the US has such information of a banned weapon they can somehow divulge it and not risk the lives or methods with which they got that information. If the proof were provided and the UN approved the actions then the work of removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power could begin and the divisiveness this issue has caused could go away.

In its current state there is no doubt that the war will be fought and no doubt that the US has not justified that war. While it is true that Saddam Hussein is a madman and the world would be a safer place without him in it, it would still be very wrong to invade a sovereign country without international justification.   UN Security Council Resolutions