This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
After the Invasion
Published on October 13, 2004 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The justification given by the Bushmen for the barbaric and illegal invasuion of Iraq was the alleged possession of WMD by Saddam Hussein. Even the CIA appointed Deulfer Report has confirmed what the world knew all along that Iraq did not possess weapons that are in the ABC category. In fact had Iraq possessed such weapons Bush would not have dared to invade the country. Now it will be difficult for Nuclear power states to hold on to their nuclear monopoly, because there is a real incentive for states like Syria, Iran and North Korea to go nuclear as a detterent against the repeat of a lawless invasion like the Iraq fiasco.
There is another aspect as well. After the Iraq invasion, the US and its allies, "the coalition of the willing" as they call themselves ought to have secured the fibbible material and other nuclear related material seized in Iraq. This did not happen. It is now estimated that enough plutonium for around 8 to 10 "dirty bombs" have reached ther grey market. It was easy to destroy a state and civil socity, but it is next to impossible to deal effectively with non state participants in the golbal terror nexus. Bush has made things much easier for them, because the nuclear genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 15, 2004
i have read all the responses. one set seems to argue that USA does not need the sanction ofnternational law, In the 4th century st augustine wrote'what is a state but a robber band, and what are states but little robber bands. i think in the last 1550 years we havwe moved beyond that idea, especially since 1648 when the treaty of westphalia established the modern state system which is the basis of international law. the usA did dot ask the U N TO authorise a regime change in iraq. the weapons of mass destruction were the grounds under u n resolution 1444. and iraq as events have shown and the deulfer report proves was not in violation of the resolution. moreover the authority to go to war or commit troops in IRAQ was secured by deciet and exaggerating the facts.
on Oct 15, 2004
Excellent article.

I guess it all boils down to keeping your word.

I just want to comment on post #3

Resolution 1441 set a 30-day limit for Iraq to disclose its weapons programs (WMD, biological etc.). It did not, however, specify what steps would be taken if the demands were not met. There is absolutely nothing in there that gave the U.S. the right to invade Iraq. Moreover, the basis for the resolution was the “evidence of MWD being present"-argument, later found to be a fabrication.

For those who argue that the U.S doesn't answer to any law outside the U.S, I would just like to point out that the international agreements you’ve entered into are voluntary. If you don’t want to give up an ounce of your sovereignty, fine. Don’t sign any agreements, don’t give any promises. Make a clear statement saying that all you’ve said before is null and void. That’s your prerogative.

But you can’t be a part-time member. It’s pretty surreal when one second you use UN resolutions to back up your argument, then the next you don’t recognise their authority at all.

The fact is:
The U.S., by being a member state and a permanent seat on the security council grants the UN the legality it needs in this case.

Right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq was made by the U.S. alone, on false grounds, without the UN’s consent.
on Oct 15, 2004
Soliatare, thanks for your compliment. But I'd like to add something to your statements: "While the original article did not mention regime change, it did grant the authority to take what ever action was necessary to stabilise the region. The US could therefore have argued that removing Saddam was required to stabilise the region. I personally don't accept that the original article was still valid though as 1441 preceded it. You cant legally set conditions and then invade using an older article when those conditions were met."

First, you are right that other prior resolutions do NOT have any bearing on 1441. In case people don't know (I'm not assuming that you don't) this is referred to as the "later in time rule." The later in time rule says that whatever document is the most recent is the one that takes precedent (i.e. the only one with legal authority). Yes. 1441 did give authority to "stabilize the region" but again I would remind you that 1441 lacked the specific verbiage authozing the use of force. Since this could be construed as an ambiguity, then you have to look at the parties' intent and as I mentioned above, most of the permanent and almost all of the non-permanent members of the security council at that time never intended 1441 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Also, for the sake of argument...all other resolutions regarding Iraq specifically stated that all signatories agreed that they recognized the soveriegnty of the state of Iraq (including its government) so there was no authorization for or any mention of regime change even though these previous resolutions authorized the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
on Oct 16, 2004
Sorry T Bone,
you misunderstood me. I was talking about the original article which authorised war, resolution 678. This (as you probably know) stated "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent revelant resolutions AND to restore international peace and stability in the area". It's this last phase which would have allowed the US to remove Saddam as a threat to stability in the region. Saddam breaking the ceasefire agreement could have been used to allow a resumption of this original war under this 678 resolution.

Article 1441 (as you know) changed all that as it gave a clear list of tasks for Saddam to do to avoid action. Taking action after Saddam met these tasks cannot be linked to an earlier resolution. So I'm in complete agreement with you on that. Just didn't agree that removing Saddam exceeded the original authority given by 678.

Paul.
on Oct 16, 2004
Who determines whether something is "legal" or not btw?

The only law the US President has to recognize is the constitution and congress gave him the authority to act.

But that aside, if you want to believe in some sort of imaginary "international" law things were safe there too.

1) Iraq had violated the 1991 cease fire agreement. It was a cease fire, not an end of the conflict.

2) Resolution 1441 promised serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply. Serious consequences is diplo-speak for "War" btw. If you disagree, ask Serbia who found out what "serious consequences were" years before.


While I agree... with reservations with Bahu, I do not agree with my entire support. I do think it was a rash decision, and it was misguidied, and it was a bad choice, but I don't think it is comparable to a war crime or a barbaric act. However, I must say to you draginol, that even though Bush had congressional approval, he has shown himself to hold a disregard for the consititution, such as when he announced that he would declare war on Iraq with or without the congress' approval. Is this the leader we want?
2 Pages1 2