The questions that must be asked are ...
- Should the US and UK have taken the action as they did ?
and
- Did the US and UK have the right to take that action ?
Since the resolution of the Gulf War, with the retreat of Iraqi forces from
Kuwait, Baghdad has been at loggerheads with the United Nations and its
members.
As part of the Gulf War cease-fire, Saddam Hussein accepted UN Resolution 687
which called upon Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass-destruction, nuclear,
chemical and biological, and to desist from further developments of such
weapons.
Resolution 687 also lead to sanctions, largely still in place, and the creating
of the UN Special Commission ( UNSCOM ) who were tasked with the monitoring of
Iraq's commitment and pursuit of this resolution in removing its weapons
a--enal.
Since being tasked with its role, UNSCOM has met with various difficulties
within Iraq.
Permission to enter various buildings, and to inspect various sites,
has been refused, documents that have been requested have not been forthcoming
and, for some, their existence has been denied, documents have been destroyed
and sites that have been inspected have been cleared entirely prior to
inspection.
Cooperation with UNSCOM has been limited and at times revoked entirely.
This has frustrated many outside Iraq, especially the US, who believe that
Iraq must comply with Resolution 687 and has threatened strong, military
action if it does not.
Whilst Scott Ritter, a former US member of the UNSCOM team, has said that data
it used was sometimes months, if not years, out of date and that the inspectors
had deliberately concentrated on sites designed to provoke the
Iraqis ( with Richard Butler, the Australian UNSCOM chief, being accused of
complying with US pressure ), this is not the official view taken by the US
nor the UK.
Many are also deeply concerned about Iraq's role in the Gulf as a whole ...
- Iraq has undoubtedly maintained at least some semblance of weapons of
mass destruction.
- Money generated from the sale of oil exports, intended as aid for
food and medicine, is believed to have been diverted into military and
weapon expansion.
- Saddam Hussein has made it clear that he is prepared to use those
weapons and, has indeed, used such weapons within his own country against
those who oppose him.
- Iraq has, when viewed by the West, has a terrible Human Right's record.
- Iraq has, with its invasion of Kuwait, demonstrated its ability to
invade other states and its intentions to extend its borders in the future
cannot be discounted.
On the other hand ...
- Iraq is an independent, sovereign state.
- There are many other countries that have, and continue to develop, weapons
of mass-destructions, the US and UK being amongst those.
- Whilst there is a suspicion that Iraq may use its weapons of
mass-destruction, there has been little evidence given that shows that this
would indeed be the case.
- Saddam Hussein believes that UNSCOM is nothing more than a puppet of the
US and its intention is to repress Iraq's capabilities to defend itself and
impose its, unwanted, political beliefs upon Iraq.
The question must be as to why the US and UK took it upon themselves to
bomb Baghdad.
The stated reason was to show Iraq that its failure to cooperate with
UNSCOM and the refusal to act with respect to Resolution 687 would not be
tolerated.
Whilst this was said to be the goal of Operation Desert Fox, it was also
stated, unequivocally, by both leaders of the US and UK, that the ultimate,
long-term, intention was to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
The specific mission of Operation Desert Fox was to destroy Iraq's nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons capability.
So, in a nut shell, neither the US nor the UK would tolerate Iraq's
belligerence and obstructiveness of the UNSCOM team and they were determined
that Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction be obliterated.
Was that really any grounds to carry out the Desert Fox raids ?
- Because Saddam Hussein was being bloody-minded and making relations with,
what he calls imperialist, western powers as difficult as possible we had the
right to attack his country ?
If I said you could play football with me but wouldn't hand over my ball;
would that give you the right to destroy it ?
- So Saddam's football poses something more of a threat, but is that a real
threat or one that is only perceived ?
If I was stockpiling weapons, for defence in the event of an attack, real or
imagined, with no intention of using them offensively, perhaps just to ensure
that those who supported me were convinced that a credible defence and
deterrent strategy existed, would you have the right to launch a pre-emptive
attack ?
- Many countries have weapons that could destroy the world many times over,
all alleged to be for defensive and deterrent purposes. Does anyone have a
right to attack such a country on the grounds that they might, one day, be used
offensively ?
Would we be happy for Iraq itself to carpet bomb our military installations
because these are a danger to Iraq itself ?
Both the US and UK stated clearly that they had no argument with the
people of Iraq only with its leader.So how did they equate that with the civilian death and destruction caused by
Desert Fox whilst Saddam was hidden deep below ground in a reinforced bunker ?
How were they planning to destroy chemical and biological weapon plants
without causing massive civilian casualties ? Bhopal should be a reminder of
the scale of destruction caused when such plant is destroyed.
This matter was given serious consideration. The UK Foreign Secretary, in
February 1998, indicated that, because an attack on a chemical or biological
weapons factory could have such serious consequences, then these would not be
considered safe targets and would be avoided.
So if the very plants that are producing the weapons, that the US and UK wanted
to see obliterated, were not to be targeted and attacked; how was Desert Fox
meant to achieve its stated aim ?
The only comprehensive solution would have been to attack such plant with
high-accuracy, laser targeted, low yield nuclear weapons. These devices would
instantly incinerate the dangerous substances they disperse and thus reduce the
danger of wide-spread contamination.
However I don't think that the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would
either help the US's or UK's cause and would indeed exasperate concerns from
Iraq's neighbours.
So what were the attacks aimed at ?
At least one cruise missile fell short of its intended target and landed in Iran
and it would also appear, from CBS reports, that a hospital in Baghdad was hit.
How did the US and UK think the citizens of Baghdad would respond when their
houses were destroyed, their children, parents and family killed, injured or
crippled ?
Were these people going to turn against their dictatorial leader and overthrow
him or were they likely to rally together to fight the imperialist enemy that
had destroyed their lives ?
Even if they had turned on Saddam; how would they have overthrown him without
the support of outside forces ?
Were we going to supply the people of Iraq with weapons, military support and
everything else needed to put a new government in place ?
Apparently a large ground force assault was ruled out; so what exactly
were the long term goals of the UK and US ?
These are unclear, which is precisely why the US and UK operated without
the support of the other three members of the UN Security Council.
When Operation Desert Storm was mounted, to force the Iraqi army out of
Kuwait; the mission was clear, the objective obvious and, despite some
objections, the action was almost universally supported.
Operation Desert Fox had no such clear or achievable objectives and it is
difficult to see how, in these circumstances, unanimous UN support would have
been forthcoming.
During Desert Storm the UK Foreign Office expressed concern that attacks on
Baghdad were doing nothing to aid a peaceful settlement of hostilities, yet
they undertook the same action when the situation in the Middle East
had become more stable and an, albeit fragile, peace existed.
The US and UK are claiming that Resolution 687, agreed some seven years ago,
gave them the right to undertake their recent raids, however other Articles
of the UN require that all members of the UN Security Council agree to the
commencement of military action before hand.
Without the full agreement of all Security Council members; the US and UK
could be argued to have been acting unilaterally, without UN support, and their
act as little short of terrorism itself.
Whilst both the US and UK were claiming that they had wide support for their
actions; Russia, China and France, the other Security Council members, reacted
strongly against the attacks. Russia, and others, including those in the Middle
East, demanded that the raids cease immediately, and Russia recalled its
ambassadors from America and the United Kingdom and put its
armed forces on alert. The Vatican expressed outrage and Koffi Annan, UN
Secretary General, expressed his regret at the action.
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the UK, not without a smug smile and an occasional
grin, informed Parliament that, although not everyone was expressing support
for the action, they too believed the world would be a better place without
Saddam.
Whilst this may be true, it does not mean that they wish to remove Saddam by
military force nor condone the latest US and UK attacks. They, unlike the US
and UK, seem to realise that a military assault must have some purpose, be
justified, and achieve some goal.
It would appear that the US and UK don't like Saddam Hussein, are less than
impressed by his f--k you attitude with respect to Resolution 687 and
they decided to give him a bloody nose out of spite.
Military action against a sovereign state, whether we like that state or not,
can easily be seen as an outright act of aggression.
And what if Saddam Hussein had decided, or does, to respond to that aggression ?
We move one more step closer towards the chasm of World War Three.
It's all a matter of timing
Both the US and UK have declared that they had no choice but to act when they
did.A delay would have meant launching an attack during Ramadan which would have
been seen to be offensive, to not just Muslims but many others, and,
it is argued, that a month's delay would have allowed Saddam to have put
defences in place against an attack.
Now considering that the UNSCOM debacle has been running ever since UN
Resolution 687 came into force, some seven years ago, I don't see how hanging
on for another month or two would have exasperated or have really changed
the situation.
If Iraq hadn't got its defences in place now; why would they have done so in
a month's time ? What would have happened to make them suddenly put up their
defences ?
Pulling UNSCOM out of Iraq would have been a clear signal to Saddam Hussein
that the threat of military action was imminent but only an idiot would have
pulled UNSCOM out now and attacked in a months time.
Leaving UNSCOM in Iraq for another month or so, even with all the difficulties
it faces, pulling them out later and commencing an assault then would have left
Iraq equally unaware and unprepared for a military offensive.
If it was, as has been alleged, an attempt by Clinton to put American citizen's
minds elsewhere and have his impeachment postponed then this was a costly
failure as the impeachment process proceeded unabated.
How Clinton can claim that a failure to strike at Iraq would have been a,
"dereliction of duty", and still maintain that his behaviour with Monica
Lewinski was not, I, for one, find hard to fathom.
The innocent bystanders
Whilst we watched television footage of cruise missile after cruise missile
raining down on Baghdad, we should have spared a thought, not just for the
innocent citizens of Iraq, but for the foreign nationals who were
effectively trapped inside Baghdad and Iraq as a whole.
Because there was no warning issued of the impending air strikes; foreign
embassies had no chance to withdraw or evacuate their staff nor did the many
aid agencies at work in Iraq.
Their lives were seriously put at risk because of the US and UK action;
I would not have wanted to be an English speaking visitor to Iraq in those
times.
We must also hope that they do not fall victim to an enraged Iraqi population
in the aftermath of the onslaught upon them.
Hypocrisy
The Pentagon has said that it was, "distressed", to learn that a US missile,
fired into Iraq, was plastered with unpleasant graffiti about Ramadan during
the air strikes.It was claimed that, "This incident does not reflect American policy or values",
and was a, "Thoughtless", act which did not reflect the US's respect for Islam.
I'm sure that the citizens of Iraq, having had this missile crash down amongst
them, appreciated that this missile was sent with the greatest of respect for
their lives that the US could proffer.
One also presumes that, because the graffiti on the missile could be read,
this was one of the infallible, high-tech, missiles that the US are so
proud of, which failed to explode ?
