>From: "Ousman Gajigo" <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: [log in to unmask] >To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] >Subject: [>-<] Waiting Game - The New Republic >Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:14:45 -0800 > >[ This e-mail is posted to Gambia|Post e-Gathering by "Ousman >Gajigo" <[log in to unmask]>] > > > > >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 > > > > >-----------------THANK YOU FOR JOINING THE GAMBIA|POST >----------------- >[ GAMBIA|POST ARCHIVE : http://www.gambiapost.net/signon.php >(password : freedumo ) ] >[ You can now chat with Post members at: >http://www.gambiatalk.net/chat/index.php >] >[ To remove yourself from this mailing list, send an e-mail to >[log in to unmask] ] >[ with the following command in the body of your email message : > ] >[ unsubscribe gambia-post

> ]

>[ Be sure to e-mail List Management for assistance at

>[log in to unmask] ]

>[ Don't forget to vistit our websites : http://www.gambiapost.net

> ]

>http://www.gambiatalk.net

>http://www.gambiatalk.com

>http://www.gambiansonline.com

>[ ©2002 Our Guiding Principle : "Va, pensiero" simply put, "Let

>thought(s) fly forth" ]