| Krypton |
I searched and didn't find anything discussing the false accusations made and why they were false. Here is something I wrote lightly touching on some of the accusations of the Bush Administration and their falsehoods.
-----------------------
Retrospective Insight into American Occupation in Iraq
On March 20, 2003, an American-led coalition invaded Iraq on the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) believed to be in Iraq’s possession. Investigators found nothing after scouring Iraq searching for the alleged WMDs for almost 2 full years. According to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)(Duelfer, 2004), Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The US invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and violated the sovereignty of Iraq.
Faulty Intelligence
(Weapons of Mass Destruction)
The main argument the Bush administration provided to justify an invasion of Iraq was that the Saddam Hussein regime was developing weapons of mass destruction that posed a serious threat to the United States, its allies, and interests (Powell, 2006). In Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, he made his position clear by stating the United States could not wait until Iraq was an imminent threat (Bush, 2003). Thus, it was necessary for the United States to act preemptively in a military intervention before Saddam had developed his WMDs.
The Bush Administration did act on March 20, 2003, invading Iraq in an almost perfect execution of “shock and awe” to Iraqi forces. Iraq’s government and military forces quickly fell and by May 1, 2003, President Bush had made his now-famous “Mission Accomplished” speech. The general thought was once Iraq’s conventional forces were routed, the war would be over. Unfortunately, by the end of 2003, insurgents aided by post-invasion looting of huge weapons stockpiles began stepping up attacks on coalition forces on an unprecedented scale.
Shortly after the invasion, the coalition sent in a 1,400 member international team known as the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). Their sole purpose was to search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, any correlating research programs, and any infrastructure related to WMD development. The ISG picked up where the original UN weapons inspections teams (UNMOVIC) and IAEA left off. It must be noted that no inspections by the ISG, UNMOVIC, nor IAEA ever found weapons of mass destruction as alleged by the Bush Administration.
The findings of the ISG were reported on September 30, 2004 in the Duelfer Report (Duelfer, 2006). This final report on Iraq’s WMD programs indicated several things:
1. There was no active Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
2. No chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons were ever found.
3. Saddam’s main concern was mitigation of UN economic sanctions.
In January 2005, the ISG concluded its search stating, “We have not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003. There is a possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." (Cornwell, Russell, Penketh, 2004). The implications of the Duelfer Report are strong indications of a major intelligence failure in the United States, or of a criminal manipulation of intelligence data to suit the means for an invasion.
(Alleged Al-Qaeda Relationship)
On February 5, 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell presented several claims about Iraq’s supposed ties to Al-Qaeda to the UN Security Council (Powell, 2003). In his presentation, he asserted that the Iraqi regime supported terrorism by making these allegations (Powell, 2006).
1. Iraq harbored Al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who set up an explosives training camp in northeastern Iraq.
2. Going back as far as the mid-90’s, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had come to an understanding that Al-Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.
3. Sometime in the mid-90s, Saddam Hussein is supposed to have sent Iraqi agents to Afghanistan to provide document forgery training to Al-Qaeda members.
4. Iraq had offered biological and chemical weapons training for an Al-Qaeda operative beginning in December 2000. Specifically, an operative named Abu Abdulla Al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq to obtain information on acquiring poisons and gases.
The CIA later came out in August 2004 stating (Strobel, Landay, Walcott, 2004), “There is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.” The fact is the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda affiliates is extremely doubtful at best. In fact, the source of the Zarqawi-Saddam connection was Al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was viewed as untrustworthy by US intelligence. This specific piece of intelligence he provided was under very questionable circumstances as he was in the detention of Egyptian authorities at the time, a country known to use torture. The information al-Libi provided under harsh treatment could not be counted on as creditable intelligence. In a November 2005 Newsweek article, two US counter-terrorism officials said they believed Colon Powell had obtained the information about supposed Iraqi involvement with Zarqawi and Al-Iraqi exclusively from Egyptian-held al-Libi. The evidence provided to the Security Council about Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda is still unfounded to this day.
Violation of Sovereignty
According to the Charter of the UN (1945), Article 2(1) states, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Sovereignty by its very definition is the right of supreme authority within a geographical boundry. The Charter of the UN guarantees 6 rights to national sovereignty (Whitman).
1. States are legally equal.
2. Every state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.
3. Every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity of other states.
4. The territorial integrity and political independence of a state are not to be violated.
5. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems.
6. Each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and conscientiously and to live in peace with other states.
These are the rules peaceful nations follow in their foreign policy, especially when applying these rules to international law. As such, the doctrine of preemptive warfare is a fallacy because the action punishes what another sovereign nation might do, which bases preemption on prediction, and prediction is of course relative speculation and could be wrong. No country should ever base a military action on a prediction of what might happen, but rather should base it on whether a fellow nation’s sovereignty has been infringed upon by an aggressor.
The invasion of Iraq does not constitute a lawful military action according to the rules set forth by the UN Charter. Iraq was not threatening the sovereignty of any other nation. Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were all attacked by Saddam Hussein but the UN reaction was swift in enforcing the rules on Iraq, punishing the country with expulsion from conquered territories and economic sanctions. Countries with a weak economy can seldom make war against its neighbors.
Once it was realized that WMDs were not likely to be found, many war proponents shifted their excuse to invade Iraq on the basis of the regime’s human rights record. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein brutalized his own people, denying them life and liberty. But every nation has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems. It is the Iraqi people who must make the decision to change their domestic scenario and not a foreign power. No freedom has ever come without the bloodshed of patriots. That is why the US cannot simply bestow upon the Iraqi’s a democracy, but rather the Iraqi’s must shed their own blood before they can attain such freedom. In the short essay A Few Words on Non-Intervention (Mills, 1873), John Mill states, “If the people have not sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors, the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own will have nothing real, nothing permanent.”
(Regional Balance of Power)
The absence of any central governing body with authority over all nations makes international balance of power the only alternative to keeping countries in check (Whitman). Iraq’s power was balanced regionally not by the US, UN, or any coalition; Iran was the premier counter-weight to Iraq’s aggressiveness. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) ended in a bloody stalemate even when Saddam used poison gas on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish rebels. Regime change was not necessary. The measures taken against Iraq in economic sanctions, military no-fly zones, and continued ostracizing were enough to contain Saddam’s aggressiveness and essentially hold his power in check.
Iran took the opportunity of Iraq’s destruction to bolster itself up, as Iran’s own counter-balance, Iraq, no longer served to threaten them. The huge regional US military presence gave the Iranians an excuse to begin development of nuclear capabilities in an apparent attempt to balance their power with that of the American nuclear arsenal. The Iranians know that if they have nuclear weapons, being the target of a military intervention will no longer be possible. The Iranian regime views their right to nuclear power as a right to defend themselves against American aggressiveness.
The US is now obligated to fill the regional power vacuum formerly filled by Iraq or let the region fall into a struggle to fill the vacuum. Democracy is bound to fail in Iraq as the Iraqis are the ones who must take freedom into their own hands or else that freedom is not truly real. The essence of the American mission to Iraq is inherently flawed and bound to fail.
Conclusion
Military action should be taken only when the sovereignty of a nation is violated by another nation or group. Otherwise, occupied peoples resent the occupier, take up arms, and form resistance groups. Preemptive military action should be undertaken only under undeniable evidence that an aggressor nation is about to violate the sovereignty of another nation. The Bush Administration provided deniable proof and thus made a gross error in invading Iraq.
The interventionism undertaken by the Bush Administration is by far the most dangerous form of foreign policy any country, especially the United States, could undertake. The current situation makes an example out of interventionist policy. Iran is trying to place itself as the dominant Middle Eastern power, sectarian tensions within Iraq are leading to civil war, coalition troops are continuing to take casualties for a failed strategic mission, and Iraqi civilians are suffering just as badly now as under the Saddam regime. Future foreign policy should never include unilateral military action on sovereign countries that have not attacked us.
References
Bush, G. (2003, January). 2003 State of the Union Address. Speech presented to the United States Congress.
Charter of the United Nations. (1945). Article 2, Chapter 1. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
Cornwell, R., Russell, B., Penketh, A. (2004, July 10). WMD report sinks Bush's main rationale for war. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://freenet.buffalo.edu/nuclear/NZH-10-8.htm
Mills, J. Dissertations and Discussions, (New York: Holt & Co., 1873), pp. 238-263. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from
Powell, C. (2003, February). Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation. Speech presented at the UN Security Council.
Strobel, W., Landay, J., and Walcott, J. (5 October 2004). Fresh CIA analysis: No evidence Saddam colluded with al-Qaida. Seattle Times, A9.
The Duelfer Report. (2004). Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
Whitman, J. (n.d.) An End to Soveriegnty. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE95/Whitman95.html |
|
|
