BACKGROUND
America secured unanimous approval for UN Security Council Resolution
1441 which stated that Iraq was assumed to be armed and must disarm as
verified by UN weapons inspectors. Should Iraq fail UN weapons
inspections, or refuse inspections, "force of arms" could be used.
Following 1441 the President asked for, and was granted by Congress,
the ability to use "force of arms" against Iraq should it fail, or refuse to
participate in, inspections.
4 months after this resolution, while the UN arms inspectors were
completing their job, President Bush stated his intention to invade Iraq.
He said that the US had "ironclad" proof that Iraq had WMD, a violation
of 1441, and therefore force was justified immediately.
The UN disagreed and pointed out that whether Iraq was in violation of
1441 was to be determined by UN weapons inspectors and that, since
they had not completed their job, no determination was yet available.
Further they said that if the President had specific information
regarding WMD he should pass it along to the UN and the inspectors.
The President did this via Colin Powell in the now infamous UN
intelligence presentation. However, the UN Security Council disagreed
that the proof was ironclad. It was suggested that the President ask
for another resolution to use force based on his new intelligence if
he still wanted to use force at that point.
The President, over the objection of NATO and the UN Security Council,
declined and invaded Iraq with "a coalition of the willing."
ANALYSIS
Senator Kerry believes the President should've been given the option
to authorize war, but, that the President should have allowed the UN
process to finish before using it.
Doing so, claims Mr. Kerry, would've given the US credibility and most
likely, based on 1441, many allies.
That is, the disagreement is not about whether Mr. Hussein is/was a
bad man, or whether the US should consider using force to get rid of
him. Rather the disagreement is about how and when to use that
option.
Mr. Kerry believes the circumstances did not justify using force at
the time it was used and that doing so has put the US at a
disadvantage in the War on Terror as well as in Iraq.
MY OPINION
This is similar to a black belt in Karate. He/she is taught that
their skill is to be used only as a last resort when defending
themselves.
Using this analogy, the President's actions would be similar to me, a
karate expert, beating you senseless before you ever attempt to strike
me because everyone told me that you had the ability to strike me.
This is the exact position America now finds itself in. Given the
lack of WMD and a connection to 9/11, the only logical reason that can
be given for the Iraq War is that Mr. Hussein is gone. The problem
with that is we have no idea what that means.
It may mean spreading democracy in Iraq or it may mean a renewed era
of Shia theocracy led by Iran. Either way the US's troops are tied up
in a struggle that is, at best, loosely linked to the War on Terror,
which is our true threat.
Expending resources on what is, at best, a tangential goal when you
have real threats facing you is not the best use of our resources.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
