Waiting Game
by the Editors

Post date: 03.07.03
Issue date: 03.17.03
The debate over war with Iraq centers on means rather than ends. Unlike
Vietnam, where opponents questioned whether the goal of repelling Hanoi's
aggression was worth the price in blood, nearly all war critics today
concede the necessity of the goal at hand--disarming Iraq. Yet they insist
it can be achieved at a lower cost, either by forcing Saddam Hussein to
relinquish his weapons peacefully or by obtaining U.N. approval before
invading. Those who oppose war are not mistaken to think that either outcome
would be preferable to fighting without the imprimatur of the Security
Council. Where they go wrong is in believing that those outcomes remain
possible. The case for waiting--a case that still appeals to a depressingly
large number of liberals--thus rests upon a delusion.

Consider voluntary disarmament. The best way to get Saddam to relinquish his
weapons was for the United Nations to draw a line in the sand, in the form
of Resolution 1441, and back it up with the threat of force. Alas, the Iraqi
dictator has stomped over that line. He failed, weapons inspectors say, to
submit a full accounting of proscribed weapons, as he was required to do
under 1441. His scientists--no doubt threatened by his secret police--have
refused to be interviewed outside the country or have insisted upon
tape-recording their interviews. Hans Blix has been reduced to praising Iraq
for partial compliance.

War opponents describe this state of affairs as "progress." In fact, it's
just the opposite. When crafting Resolution 1441 last November, Russia and
France worried that the United States would declare war over some
ultra-technical violation. Today, Iraq is allowed to engage without sanction
in substantive violations that not even France countenanced three months
ago. Resolution 1441 is effectively a dead letter--a development that has
only fed Saddam's confidence. As The Washington Post reported last month,
"Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at
the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed
through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors."
This further degradation of the U.N.'s credibility has erased any slim
possibility that the mere threat of force might compel Iraq to disarm.

Some war opponents have therefore retreated to a fallback argument: Even if
Iraq never disarms completely, at least the presence of inspectors will keep
it from expanding its arsenal. "What can [Saddam] get away with?" Democratic
presidential candidate Howard Dean asked recently, "as long as Iraq is
inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of
no-fly zones?" But this assertion rests upon an ignorance of history. In the
1990s, while UNSCOM, considered by many weapons experts to be more
aggressive than the current inspections regime, prowled Iraq, inspectors and
American intelligence were convinced the Iraqi nuclear program had been
eradicated. Only a series of high-profile defections--a lucky break unlikely
to recur--revealed that Saddam had been working toward a bomb under their
noses. And, even if today's inspections are working, history suggests that
the minute the threat of force recedes, Saddam will end even his current
minimal compliance. Many liberals complain that war will end the
inspections, but, if we reach the summer, when war is deemed impossible, it
is a sure bet that Saddam will end them himself.

Just as naive is the hope that further delay will convince the Security
Council to authorize force. Many Democrats have presented the dearth of
international support as essentially a conscious choice by President Bush.
As Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said this week, "The only way to do
this and do it right is through the auspices of the U.N. and an
international coalition. I think in both cases this administration has
fallen short." Yet the Bush administration has demonstrated more interest in
the Security Council than the Security Council has demonstrated in Iraqi
disarmament. For a dozen years, France and Russia fought to weaken
inspections and resisted even modest punishments of Iraq. The last few
months have followed the same pattern. When Iraq withholds full cooperation
from inspectors, Paris and Moscow are unmoved because this violation falls
short of a "smoking gun." When a breakthrough does occur, such as the
discovery of the Al-Samoud missiles, they see it as evidence that
inspections are working.

It's now clear that the Security Council endorsed Resolution 1441 only as a
gambit to avoid war. French President Jacques Chirac revealed perhaps more
than he intended last week when he blurted out that "disarmament must happen
peacefully." This gives the game away. Disarmament could only come about
either through war or the threat of war. If disarmament must be peaceful,
then there will be no disarmament. And, when Democrats insist that war must
have U.N. approval, they are attaching themselves to the French position. It
may seem they are arguing for a certain means, but in fact they are arguing
for an end.










_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~