Jump to content

Iraq disarmament crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Cunctator (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 27 September 2002 (a bit of organizing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

As part of its War on Terrorism, the United States in 2002 is considering invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, announced on September 4, 2002 the Bush Doctrine that the United States had the right to launch a preemptive military strike at any nation that could put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. At the same time he stated he would seek congressional approval for a strike against Iraq.

On September 12, 2002, President Bush, speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations outlined the complaints of the United States against the regime of Saddam Hussein, detailing the noncompliance by Iraq to the terms of 16 resolutions of the Security Council since the Gulf War in 1990. Specific areas of noncompliance addressed in this speech include:

  • "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
  • U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
  • Iraq continues to hold over 600 prisoners it agreed to release in 1991, including one U.S. pilot.
  • Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
  • Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
  • Iraq flagrantly violoated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council, expecially the three permanent members of the Council with veto power, Russia, China, and France, which are known to have reservations about an invasion of Iraq. In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. This was viewed a ploy by the United States which continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force. It now appears that Iraq's compliance with inspection is contingent on the Security Council continuing to honor agreements made previously that exempted Saddam Hussein's numerous "palaces" from inspection. Time enters into the equation as it will take until about the middle of October for the United Nations inspectors to begin active work; an invasion to be practical needs to occur during the mild weather of January and February because of the necessity of the troops using protective gear defending them against chemical warfare.

The US is making five demands of Saddam: [1]

On September 26, 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and aiding their quest for weapons of mass destruction.

Opposition to the proposed invasion

As of August 2002, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who believes U.N. inspections effectively verified the destruction of over 90% of Iraq's weapon capabilities, is actively campaigning against an invasion, and challenging the Bush administration to make public any evidence that Iraq has rebuilt the capabilities which were destroyed under the auspices of UNSCOM. Says Ritter, "If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof." Other former inspectors disagree with that assessment.

Most nations that were allies of the United States during the Gulf War are either opposed to the projected US invasion or reluctant to help with it. Many argue that Iraq has no connection to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Others opposed to US military action argue that insufficient evidence has been produced of "an immediate threat" and accordingly such action would be contary to international law. On the other hand, proponents of war suggest that United Nations resolutions authorizing the Gulf War remain in effect and justify military action.

When President of the United States George W. Bush toured Europe in June, 2002, tens of thousands of people protested his presence. Most European leaders, with the notable exception of Tony Blair, oppose American action against Iraq; German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made his opposition to the invasion an issue in his electoral campaign. In early August, 2002, public support in the United States for an invasion was subdued.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate held hearings on the proposed invasion July 31 and August 1, 2002. Richard Butler testified that there was indeed a threat. Other issues discussed were cost (The 1991 Gulf War cost the allies about $60 billion.), whether or not former allies of the United States from the Gulf War would support the invasion, and whether or not congressional approval was legally necessary to authorize an invasion.

Bush's legal advisors argue that he has the legal authority under United States law to invade Iraq without the approval of Congress. The Constitution grants the power of declaring war to Congress, but past presidents, particularly since World War II, have often ordered military action in the absence of such a declaration. In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court. Moreover, even if congressional approval were required, the Bush administration may argue that approval has already been granted by the Persian Gulf Resolution of Jan 12, 1991, and the resolution of September 14, 2001, which authorized military action against terrorism. The position under international law is also controversial.

In early August Dick Cheney met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups, pledging that the Bush Administration intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. Dick Cheney in his role as Vice President of the United States has taken the lead in advocating an invasion, maintaining that it is foolish to wait until Iraq has completed construction of a nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have also been vocal in urging an invasion.

It would be difficult for the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power short of a full-scale invasion. Saddam's whereabouts are kept secret making an assassination attempt difficult. An internal military coup is improbable, given that Saddam has surrounded himself with Republican Guard troops, the most loyal, best trained, and best equipped troops in the country. Finally a small invasion force attempting to quickly seize Baghdad runs a serious risk of failure, as Iraq appears to be fortifying the capital for street to street fighting.

[2] A classified document detailing military options for an invasion was prepared for President Bush by American military planners prior to his speech on September 12, 2002 at the United Nations calling for a UN Security Council resolution. Military planning for an invasion seems to focus on an intensive bombing campaign followed by a land invasion in the winter by troops based in Kuwait. Depending on the degree of international support, especially as reflected in a Security Council resolution additional resources may be available in Saudi Arabia, eastern Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and possibly Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. In the case of Qatar, despite being the site of an American base, the government has expressed its opposition to participating in an invasion although no actual request has been made of it by the United States. Turkey is also beginning to show reservations, fearing that a power vacuum after Saddam's defeat will give rise to a Kurdish state.

Several senior Republican leaders, including some within the Bush Administration, have expressed reservations about an invasion of Iraq.

  • Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State 1973-77) equivocated in a August 12 editorial to The Washington Post. He said that there is an imperative to preemptive action, but also warned of destabilizing the Middle East and of potential negative long-term consequences.
  • James A. Baker III (Secretary of State 1989-92), in an August 25 editorial to The New York Times, argued that the United States should first push for renewed weapons inspections, and if war is ultimately necessary, the U.S. should not "go it alone".
  • Lawrence Eagleburger (Secretary of State 1992-93) said on August 18 on Fox News Sunday that invasion was unjustified "unless the President can demonstrate to all of us that Saddam has his finger on a nuclear, biological or chemical trigger and he's about to use it".
  • Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor 1975-77, 89-93) argued in an August 15 editorial to the Wall Street Journal that an invasion would be costly and a distraction from more pressing issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war on terrorism.
  • Colin Powell (Secretary of State 2001-present) is not publicly disagreeing with Bush, but appears to be arguing behind the scenes that the U.S. must have a long-term plan for how to rebuild Iraq if and when Saddam is overthrown.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_disarmament_crisis&oldid=319250"