Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Inspections Did Not Work 40

Journal by pudge

People keep saying the fact there were no WMD in Iraq means inspections worked.

This is demonstrably false.

First, we still don't know there were no WMD. That seems likely, but the work is not done. But let's assume for the sake of argument there were none.

So assuming that, we therefore conclude that Iraq was largely disarmed. It had some illegal missiles, and it could not account for everything it had.

But this does not mean inspections worked. Far from it.

The group performing the inspections is called UNMOVIC, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. The name clues us in to the essential truth: it's not enough to inspect. You have to be able to monitor and verify. You cannot say inspections worked if they've not been verified.

That was the whole justification for war: that Iraq refused to cooperate with the inspectors to verify conclusively that he had no weapons. Blix said several times that Iraq was not fully cooperating in January through March 2003. Some of the times he came back he said they were cooperating more, but they were not fully cooperating, and we therefore could not have confidence they were actually disarmed.

I used this analogy a lot before the war began: a cop tries to apprehend a convicted felon, and tells the felon to take his hands out of his pockets and put them on his head. The felon refuses. What is the cop to do? His partner moves in to grab him, the felon flinches, the cop fires.

Now, some people say we could have verified, we could have gained complete cooperation, given enough time. But this kind of stalling is what UN Resolution 1441 -- approved of unanimously -- was designed to avoid when it said cooperation must be full and immediate.

Kerry himself echoed this sentiment in February 2002, when Chris Matthews asked him if Iraq "can be reduced to a diplomatic problem -- can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get past a possible war with him?" Kerry responds, "Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. He would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes."

We did go through the process. We went through the UN. We gave him multiple chances over those three months. Hussein bought time, he played a game.

It's unfortunate it came to what it did, but let us be clear: finding out after the fact that there were no WMD does not mean inspections worked, and does not mean we were wrong to act.

Some might think I am trying to justify the war in light of the lack of WMD. But no, I said the same thing before the war. I never believed WMD existed in the couple months leading up to the war (and Powell's UN speech only made me more skeptical): I only believed Iraq was clearly not in compliance and as such we could not know that disarmament had occurred, and must therefore act as though it had not.

Also, I found the real reason for war.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inspections Did Not Work More

Inspections Did Not Work

Comments Filter:

  • Wrong (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    "finding out after the fact that there were no WMD does not mean inspections worked"

    Wrong.

    It means the diplomatic efforts worked, but (if we accept your argument) we didn't know it at the time.

    Insisting that something could not have worked without us knowing for sure that it was working, by picking an arbitrary definition for "working," isn't a very convincing argument. Most people are able to tell the difference between "that's false" and "I didn't know that at the time."

    As Fred Kaplan points out t [msn.com]

    • It means the diplomatic efforts worked, but (if we accept your argument) we didn't know it at the time.

      Maybe you think the goal was to disarm Hussein. Not so. The goal is not to merely disarm Hussein, but to verify that disarmament and monitor them that they do not re-arm. Without the verification and monitoring, we don't have anything "working." Inspections are not a system unto themselves, they are part of a larger process, and without the verification and monitoring, inspections are hollow and mean
    • I'd call Pudge's argument not wrong. Was it justifiable to go into Iraq? If you formulate the question as "unless they are in full compliance, action is justified", it's a slam dunk. Iraq was not fully compliant, QED.

      But real world questions aren't binary. Exactly how much non-compliance is worthy of a war and occupation? What if you pile on all the other bad stuff about Saddam? We're in the realm of opinion.

      If you ask me, some action against Iraq was potentially justified, but not as part of some lone-ra
      • But real world questions aren't binary. Exactly how much non-compliance is worthy of a war and occupation? What if you pile on all the other bad stuff about Saddam? We're in the realm of opinion.

        Yes, I did join two separate this. The first is did the inspections process work? No, categorically, it did not, because it is a whole process by which they are not only disarmed, but we have verified that fact and can be convinced of it. The process made progress, but it was not successful in the end.

        The seco
        • if Bush did lie, if he was not justified, [...] Bush should be ousted because of those mistakes.

          Yeah, it was a bit late at night and I think I overstated that. Thanks for saying what I believe so eloquently. ;)

          What else do you want to know about Salam? He spoke a lot in the Q & A session.

          He has no opinion on Bush versus Kerry, and he thinks neither do most Iraqis. I was quoting him when I said "any president had limited options".

          His position on the war is, in American terms, the union of Bush and N
          • He has no opinion on Bush versus Kerry, and he thinks neither do most Iraqis.

            That's kinda what I've always thought about most people in the Middle East, including the terrorists. It's not like they loved us under Clinton or Carter, let alone Reagan or Bush 41.

            However, you'd have to be a moron to think the USA did it for altruistic reasons -- corporations are exploiting Iraq.

            But I can't see how this would be the *purpose* of a war. We all know the Iraq war significantly stalled the economic recovery.
            • You read my livejournal post right? I'll tell you what he said, but Salam hates being a pundit.

              But I can't see how this would be the *purpose* of a war.

              I phrased it wrong. Think of those as two separate observations. (non-altruistic / exploitation). See this entry [blogspot.com] from Where is Raed -- he said similar things.

              Is that his long-term optimism?

              No, he still wants Iraqi democracy. But he also said that what Iran has looks more and more tempting. (By which, I think he meant a stable country with limited fr
              • Salam does believe civil war is possible.

                This is the thing I get the least. It seems to me that civil war would be against two different groups of people, and it just doesn't seem like these two groups hate each other enough. But then again, we could've said the same thing about the North and the South. But there, the South was fighting for its own independence, and here ... what would they be fighting about? It's not like one group looks poised to really dominate the other, that I can see.

                Anyway, li
  • It simply didn't. If it had, you'd have a security council resolution to point to which explicately authorized the use of force in Iraq. You don't have this. So, you can't claim the process played out.

    Now you can justify this through whatever means you wish. The process went as far as we could let it, etc. etc. But you can't claim the process played out, because it didn't.
    • It simply didn't. If it had, you'd have a security council resolution to point to which explicately authorized the use of force in Iraq. You don't have this. So, you can't claim the process played out.

      You're talking about something that no leader in America believes is a required part of the process. You appear to think that only the UN may authorize force. The UN has only authorized force twice: in Korea and Kuwait.

      When the US got UN Resolution passed, they said explicitly they would not require a UN
      • The UN has only authorized force twice: in Korea and Kuwait.

        This shows just how futile it can be to try to perfectly work through the UN process.

        Two years ago I was surprised to learn that the broadly accepted 1998 Kosovo war didn't get UN approval, since Russia would have vetoed it. Just now, I was surprised to learn the UN never authorized force in Afghanistan in 2001. I always thought they had. There was a resolution suggesting the need to root out terrorism, but nothing along the lines authori
        • Anyone know why we didn't get UN approval for that war?

          My guess is that it would have taken too long, so we didn't bother, and instead merely went through NATO. Since we were attacked first, the need to get authorization was certainly lessened, and the urgency to respond quickly was heightened.
      • You're using two different definitions of the process and using one to bolster your argument that the other is correct. You have the UN process, long, hard, rarely used(we've gone through NATO or been "invited" more often) for this purpose, which is where the resolutions came from. Then you have the domestic process of getting congressional approval, which concluded months before the war.

        The UN process never concluded, and the resolutions were never necessary for congress to authorize force unless you su
        • You're using two different definitions of the process and using one to bolster your argument that the other is correct.

          I am saying that the UN process does not necessarily include relying on their authorization. We went through the process of giving Iraq a chance, and of them failing to meet the standard the UN Security Council unanimously set for them. Whether the UN should authorize force is a separate, additional, process.

          The UN process never concluded, and the resolutions were never necessary for
          • I am saying that the UN process does not necessarily include relying on their authorization.

            It has to, if you're going through the full process, which it takes years upon years or a huge smoking gun to do. Lemme see if I can distill this down, the UN wanted Saddam disarmed and wanted to verify Saddam was disarmed, but some members of the security council did not yet believe it was time for force. We disagreed. Hence, us and Britain, according to our own internal processes decided to break from the rest
            • I am saying that the UN process does not necessarily include relying on their authorization.

              It has to, if you're going through the full process

              The process is defined by the resolutions. Resolution 1441 said only that the council would meet again. It did not say anything about a next step after that. There is no necessary continuance in the process beyond that for it to be some mythical "full process." There is no "full process" anywhere that requires what you're talking about.

              Of course, the cold
  • We did go through the process. We went through the UN. We gave him multiple chances over those three months. Hussein bought time, he played a game.

    The fact that the resolutions all specified that they must be complied with immediately bothers me. You can never immediately do anything. There is always a lag before action occurs. How much of a lag can there be before there are consequences? The problem is that the acceptable amount of lag is entirely subjective. Three months is a long time, is it long

    • The fact that the resolutions all specified that they must be complied with immediately bothers me. You can never immediately do anything. ... The problem is that the acceptable amount of lag is entirely subjective.

      Well, no. The UN inspectors made requests, and those requests were refused. If they actually were working to implement them and it took some time, then you could argue that it is subjective, but when the request to interview scientists outside of Iraq is refused, then no, there's no subjecti
      • Name one treaty the US has violated in the last several years. Just one.

        Well for one, both Virginia and Texas (under George Bush as governor I might add) violated the treaty that guarantees consular access when they executed foreign nationals.

        The US backed out of Kyoto - and while not a treaty violation since the treaty hadn't yet been ratified iirc, Clinton did sign it.

        There have also been numerous executions of individuals who committed their crimes before they turned 18. The US feels that it's exe

        • I can't speak for the others, but as far as Kyoto goes, there were provisions in the treaty that allowed countries to back out with a 6 month notice, iirc. We gave that, thereby not breaking any part of it.

          --trb
          • I can't speak for the others, but as far as Kyoto goes, there were provisions in the treaty that allowed countries to back out with a 6 month notice, iirc.

            I don't know if that is true, but it is irrelevant. We were never at any time a part of the Kyoto treaty.
            • We were never at any time a part of the Kyoto treaty.

              Not sure how you're defining "part of", but Clinton did sign it [bbc.co.uk]:

              The 1997 agreement was signed by the Clinton administration, European Union member states and Japan, but the White House says Mr Bush does not support it and is calling for a cabinet review of climate change policy.

              It was never ratified by the Senate, but Clinton's intent was to join it. I was wrong about the 6 month deal...I was thinking of Bush pulling out of the ABM treaty [planetpapers.com].

              --trb
              • Not sure how you're defining "part of", but Clinton did sign it:

                We were never legally obligated to it, nor it to us. We never entered or joined it. It was never law of any kind and had no force of law. In succinct and legal terms, it was not ratified.

                A signature only denotes intent. A U.S. President does not have the authority to enter into treaties, and we never did enter into that treaty.

                Is that clear enough? :-)
        • Well for one, both Virginia and Texas (under George Bush as governor I might add) violated the treaty that guarantees consular access when they executed foreign nationals.

          This is the first I've heard of it, and cannot comment.

          The US backed out of Kyoto - and while not a treaty violation since the treaty hadn't yet been ratified iirc, Clinton did sign it.

          Yes, not a treaty violation, since we were never a part of the treaty. Clinton's signature on it has no force of law whatsoever, and has no meaning w
          • This is the first I've heard of it, and cannot comment.

            The Vienna treaty [internatio...roject.org]. I just googled 'virginia texas consular access' and this site [deathpenaltyinfo.org] came up, it has a description of what happened.

            What treaty?

            It's the Convention on the Rights of the Child [unicef.org]

            Well, technically, no. When soldiers violate the Geneva Conventions or similar, that does not necessarily constitute the nation violating the treaty, as long as the proper actions are taken to punish, rectify, etc.

            Right - but we're also technically in viola

            • The Vienna treaty. I just googled 'virginia texas consular access' and this site came up, it has a description of what happened.

              It seems like a fairly complex legal situation and set of cirumstances, enough that I still don't have enough information to comment (though thanks for the links, so I can follow up if I do have the time and inclination).

              It's the Convention on the Rights of the Child

              The U.S. has not ratified that treaty, and therefore did not violate it, similar to Kyoto. (It even says that
              • It seems like a fairly complex legal situation and set of cirumstances, enough that I still don't have enough information to comment (though thanks for the links, so I can follow up if I do have the time and inclination).

                Sure thing - it gets even more interesting when you read that we've used the treaty as leverage to force other countries to provide the same access for our citizens.

                (It even says that right on that URL you gave. :-)

                Hah! Show's you what I bother to read :-) It had been a while since

                • Depends on how long it takes, political climate at the time, etc... could maybe have happened at some point. Who knows, maybe Kerry will bring us back in to it.

                  Yeah, but that doesn't really defeat my point. If the House and Senate change drastically to the point it could pass (it is not just Republicans, many if not most Democrats are against it too, because it hurts the businesses back home), then that would be a different story. It ain't happening any time soon.

  • Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War [yahoo.com]

    MIAMI (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, who found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991, justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

    The report shows that "delay, defer, wasn't an option," Cheney told a town-hall style meeting.

    While Democrats seized on the new report by Charles Duelfer to bolster their case that invading

    • Get it? According to Cheney, there were only two options: one, drop all inspections and sanctions and let Iraq do whatever the heck it wanted, la la la, Saddam is a great guy -- or two, invade!

      I think his point is well made. We already know Hussein wouldn't verify, and the only way to make sure he would not continue to not have weapons is monitoring in Iraq, which I have absolutely no faith in.

      According to Cheney, if we hadn't gone to war, then inevitably, we would have had to drop the sanctions (why?
      • allowing the inspections to continue and continuing the pressure of the sanctions

        To what end?

        Your point of view in a nutshell. Thank you. I think we're done here.

        • allowing the inspections to continue and continuing the pressure of the sanctions

          To what end?

          Your point of view in a nutshell. Thank you. I think we're done here. You think your done? "To what end" was a very good question.

          Sanctions weren't working in that we could not VERIFY what Iraq had/didn't have. They were not cooperating. The entire world believed they had WMD. Failures of the intellegence agencies around the WORLD aside, Iraq was ready to restart their banned weapons programs the moment

        • Your point of view in a nutshell. Thank you.

          Back at you. You think the Middle East and Iraq were just fine how they were. I don't. I think we needed change. Your proposal offered no change, but more of the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, even if you win the rat race -- you're still a rat.

Close