Sunday,
March 9 2003
THE
'RUSH' TO WAR:
September
11, 2001
Terrorists attack the mainland
of the United States of America, using four commercial airliners,
and kill 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
September
20, 2001
President George Bush:
Address to Joint Session of Congress
Our war
on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there....Our
response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated
strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy
campaign, unlike any other we have seen. We will starve terrorists
of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place
to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue
nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation,
in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are
with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward,
any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will
be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
January
29, 2002
President George
Bush: State of the Union Address
Time is
not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather.
I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United
States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous
regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
June 1,
2002
President
George Bush: United States Military Academy - West Point, NY
The gravest
danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism
and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and
nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology --
when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain
a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have
declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these
terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us,
or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose
them with all our power.
For much
of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War
doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those
strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking.
Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations
-- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no
nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when
unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver
those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist
allies. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for
the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who
solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically
break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we
will have waited too long.
September
12, 2002
President George Bush:
Address to the United Nations - New York City
The United
Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war, the
hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns
of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the
peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will
and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security
Council so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations
would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than
wishes.
Twelve
years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the
regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize
other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been
appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace
and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped
by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United
Nations. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator
accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him
and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every
one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt
for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking
every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam
Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991,
Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime
cease at once the repression of its own people, including the
systematic repression of minorities, which the council said
threatened international peace and security in the region. This
demand goes ignored.
In 1991,
the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687,
demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other
lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.
In 1991,
the U.N. Security Council through Resolution 687 demanded that
Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed then
broke this promise.
In 1991,
the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons
of mass destruction and long range missiles and to prove to
the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.
Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
The Security
Council renewed its demands on Iraq three more times in 1997,
citing flagrant violations, and three more times in 1998, calling
Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand
was renewed yet again.
The history,
the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein
regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise
is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good
faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world
in a reckless gamble, and this is a risk we must not take.
Are Security
Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside
without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose
of its founding or will it be irrelevant?
My nation
will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common
challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must
move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. But the
purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security
Council resolutions will be enforced, the just demands of peace
and security will be met or action will be unavoidable and a
regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
October
10-11, 2002
The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly
passes a resolution authorizing President Bush to use the
Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq. (United
States Senate 77-23, United
States House 296 - 133)
The President
is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as
he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
November
8, 2002
UN
Security Council Resolution 1441 - The 17th resolution attempting
to disarm and deal with Saddam Hussein's regime since 1991 is
passed 15 - 0.
.....Iraq
has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under
relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors
and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs
8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
.....Requests
the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution,
which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven
days of that notification its intention to comply fully with
this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately,
unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
.....False
statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq
pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time
to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of,
this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of
Iraq’s obligations
..... Recalls,
in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq
that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued
violations of its obligations.
January
28, 2003
President
George Bush: State of the Union Address
Today,
the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger
facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and
possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes
could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder.
They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies,
who would use them without the least hesitation.
This threat
is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century,
small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies
and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate
the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder
had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism,
and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by
the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United
States of America.
Now, in
this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared
again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once
again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between
a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once
again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and
the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility....
The world
has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept
a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends
and our allies.....
We will
consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein
does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for
the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
February
25, 2003
UK
Prime Minister Tony Blair: Statement to the House of Commons
To those
who say we are rushing to war, I say this. We are now 12 years
after Saddam was first told by the UN to disarm; nearly 6 months
after President Bush made his speech to the UN accepting the
UN route to disarmament; nearly 4 months on from Resolution
1441; and even now today we are offering Saddam the prospect
of voluntary disarmament through the UN....
There is
no complexity about Resolution 1441. I ask all reasonable people
to judge for themselves...
The issue
is not time. It is will. If Saddam is willing genuinely to co-operate
then the inspectors should have up to July, and beyond July;
as much time as they want. If he is not willing to co-operate
then equally time will not help. We will be just right back
where we were in the 1990s....
Today the
path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the
inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the
country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament.
March
6, 2003
President
George Bush: National Press Conference
Saddam
Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed
the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned,
for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American
people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain
a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from
his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American
people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction
in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here
at home. So, therefore, I think the threat is real. And so do
a lot of other people in my government. And since I believe
the threat is real, and since my most important job is to protect
the security of the American people, that's precisely what we'll
do....
We want
to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam
Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.
And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to
let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.
March 11-12, 2003
UN
Security Council will vote on an 18th resolution dealing with
Saddam Hussein's Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
Text
of United States, United Kingdom and Spain Resolution
Text
of British Amendment
Determined
to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore
international peace and security in the area, Acting under Chapter
VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms
the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);
2. Calls
on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests
of its people and the region;
3. Decides
that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded
by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003,
the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional,
immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament
obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant
resolutions; and is yielding possession of UNMOVIC and the IAEA
of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures,
prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant
resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction
of such items;
4. Decides
to remain seized of the matter.
The 'Unilateral'
Coalition Publicly Supporting the United States
|
United
Kingdom
|
Spain
|
Italy
|
|
Australia
|
Bulgaria
|
Portugal
|
|
Hungary
|
Czech Republic
|
Denmark
|
|
Poland
|
Kuwait
|
Albania
|
|
Slovenia
|
Croatia
|
Estonia
|
|
Latvia
|
Lithuania
|
Macedonia
|
|
Romania
|
Slovakia
|
Slovenia
|
J.
McIntyre 4:30 pm
Friday,
March 7 2003
BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE: I thought Bush gave a decent
performance last night. It wasn't spectacular and it probably
didn't change many minds, but he did what he needed to do: clearly
restate the case against Hussein and the reason the United States
will use force, if necessary, to take him down.
The most
impressive thing about Bush's performance was his discipline.
Despite questions designed to lead him off into speculative and
personal territory (is this another Vietnam, what if you've got
it wrong, etc) Bush stayed focused on three main themes: Saddam
is a threat to U.S. national security, we will reluctantly use
force to disarm him, and we will respect innocent Iraqi life and
help them achieve freedom.
I suspect
that in private Bush would have given Terry Moran an old fashioned
Texas tongue lashing, but last night he didn't even come close
to taking the bait - to his great credit. Still, it's something
I would've liked to have seen.
UPDATE: I just noticed that James
Lileks provides an answer to my question of what a Bush tongue
lashing of Terry Moran would look like -and it's funnier than
I ever imagined.
TONY VS.
MTV: I love stories
like this. Heads of state debating baggy-pantsed twenty-somethings
overflowing in the comfort of their own intelligence and self-righteousness.
The quote:
Niklas
Ergandt, 25, of Sweden set the tone early. "I'm able to produce
anthrax in my bathroom," he said. "Why don't you bomb Sweden?"
I'm sure
Niklas' question won him high fives and chants of "right
on, dude" from his fellows, but let's take a minute to work
it over: If you had already produced anthrax and used on someone;
if for 12 years you were told by authorities to give up all of
your anthrax but didn't; if for for the last 4 years you defied
orders to allow people to monitor whether you had produced further
chemical and biological agents; if you were known to have connections
with terrorist organizations and presented a larger threat to
the world community; and if you were given one final chance to
disarm but refused, then yes, we should use bombs. Not on Sweden
but on you in particular. It's really a pretty simple concept.
SPEND
A MOMENT WITH PAUL KRUGMAN: But only
if you can stomach it. Krugman says the Bush administration
is so dishonest that it's keeping him from being his "usual
cheerful self." I also got a chuckle out of Krugman saying
that he's still the same "moderate Democrat" he was
in 1982 - it's just that the whole world has moved to the right
so now he looks like a total leftist. Perception really is everything.
EXTRA
CREDIT: I usually try not to link to lengthy academic pieces
on the blog but I've got to make an exception. Michael Doran is
an Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
He recently authored this
article in Foreign Affairs which analyzes the Palestinian
problem and its relation to our strategy on Iraq.
Doran contends
that much of the conventional wisdom surrounding the Palestinian
issue is based on faulty assumptions because Palestine's power
in the Arab world (and beyond) is largely based on symbolism.
Doran concludes that forcing a settlement of the conflict - such
as the one Clinton tried to achieve in late 2000- may temporarily
alleviate political pressures, but won't change the symbolism
of Palestine throughout the world and therefore won't result in
any flow of "goodwill" toward the U.S.
Doran believes
that only a fundamental change to U.S. policy in the Middle East
will alter the Palestine-as-symbol paradigm that now exists and
that the impending liberation of Iraq may be a harbinger of such
change:
What
the Bush administration seems to understand better than its
critics is that the influence of the United States in the Arab-Israeli
arena derives, to no small extent, from its status as the dominant
power in the region as a whole -- and that this status, in turn,
hinges on maintaining an unassailable American predominance
in the Persian Gulf. It is worth remembering that Saddam Hussein's
invasion of Kuwait in 1990 came on the heels of the first Palestinian
intifada, which also provoked much Arab hostility toward the
United States. It was Saddam's defeat that cleared a space for
the Madrid Conference and eventually the Oslo peace process.
Then as now, defeating Saddam would offer the United States
a golden opportunity to show the Arab and Muslim worlds that
Arab aspirations are best achieved by working in cooperation
with Washington. If an American road to a calmer situation in
Palestine does in fact exist, it runs through Baghdad.
Find some
time to read the rest. And, for double extra credit, you can click
here to read a recent interview with Professor Doran where
he discusses his article in more depth. Enjoy. - T.
Bevan 9:40 am
Thursday,
March 6 2003
BACK ON THE RESERVATION: If you want to know what's wrong
the left's position on Iraq, look no further than today's column
by Mary
McGrory. McGrory apologizes for writing an earlier column
in which she said she
was persuaded by Colin Powell's February 5 presentation at
the United Nations. This column offended her liberal readers,
of course, and generated a flood of angry mail asking why she'd
left the reservation.
Look at what
McGrory wrote on February 6, the day after Colin Powell's presentation
to the UN:
Powell
took his seat in the United Nations and put his shoulder to
the wheel. He was to talk for almost an hour and a half. His
voice was strong and unwavering. He made his case without histrionics
of any kind, with no verbal embellishments. He aired his tapes
of conversations between Iraqi army officers who might well
be supposed to be concealing toxic materials or enterprises.
He talked of the mobile factories concealed in trains and trucks
that move along roads and rails while manufacturing biological
agents. I was struck by their ingenuity and the insistence on
manufacturing agents that cause diseases such as gangrene, plague,
cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever.
Would
Saddam Hussein use them? He already has, against his own people
and Iranians. He has produced four tons of deadly VX: "A single
drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes." The cumulative
effect was stunning...
I wasn't
so sure about the al Qaeda connection. But I had heard enough
to know that Saddam Hussein, with his stockpiles of nerve gas
and death-dealing chemicals, is more of a menace than I had
thought. I'm not ready for war yet. But Colin Powell has convinced
me that it might be the only way to stop a fiend, and that if
we do go, there is reason.
This isn't
a 180 degree turn in McGrory's position. She still not for war.
All she did was make note of the fact that there is a good reason
to go to war if we choose. Yet even the slightest acknowledgment
of justifiable cause in the case against Iraq caused her liberal
base to shriek in pain.
Exactly what
has changed about Colin Powell's presentation since February 6?
Has any of the evidence he presented been discredited or contravened?
Are the violations and atrocities he spoke of any less true today
than they were five weeks ago? Of course not. But the people who
castigated McGrory for being persuaded by Powell were never open
to seeing or hearing facts that would contradict their positions
in the first place.
And so instead
of standing up and saying that she's still not for war but that
Powell's presentation still offers proof of Iraqi noncompliance,
McGrory backslides:
We have
been through a great deal together -- the Kennedy assassination,
Vietnam, El Salvador, Grenada, Lebanon and Florida. For the
first time I can remember, we are estranged.
Alas, this
is too much for McGrory to bear. She pleads to return to the antiwar
reservation, where emotion and orthodoxy are king and where facts,
whenever unhelpful, be damned:
You
see how sorry I am. I hope now that all is forgiven and that
I can come home again.
Have a safe
trip Mary....
OSAMA'S
ALIVE: That's what the AP
is reporting. But what would you expect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
to say? - T. Bevan
7:56 am
Monday,
March 3 2003
STOPPING THE WAR: This Washington Post story chronicles
the braintrust of the antiwar movement as they prepare for
more demonstrations and work to organize acts of civil disobedience
against U.S. targets around the world.
There are
three paragraphs worth a closer look. Here's the first:
Many
of the organizers confess that they were stunned by the size
and scope of the demonstrations two weeks ago. "A big part of
our meeting was about digesting the shock of the earthquake
that was February 15," said Larry Holmes, an organizer in New
York for International ANSWER, one of the U.S. groups organizing
the rallies. "We were just as surprised as everyone else. But
you're seeing a new sense of confidence among organizations.
People don't want this war, and they're giving us a mandate
to do whatever it takes to stop it."
The fact
that the antiwar movement now feels it has a "mandate"
is just one of many examples of the price we are now paying for
continued delay. The longer we wait the greater likelihood things
will begin to unravel. We should act now and mend fences later.
It's clear
that Bush's instinct has always been for quick, decisive action,
but he succumbed to Colin Powell and the siren song of the United
Nations - which was still probably the right thing to do. As a
result, however, while we have been playing games with France
in the Security Council for the last four months antiwar forces
around the world have grown.
But now let's
read the other two paragraphs from the Washington Post story on
the genesis of the antiwar movement:
The
organizers say the February rallies were first agreed upon at
a small strategy session in Florence in November. But their
roots go back to the days just after Sept. 11, 2001, when activists
say they began meeting to map out opposition to what they anticipated
would be the U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks
on New York and the Pentagon.
In Britain,
according to organizer John Rees, several hundred activists
first got together the weekend after Sept. 11. Most were from
the hard core of the British left -- the Socialist Workers Party,
the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-capitalist
organization Globalized Resistance, along with Labor Party legislators
Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway. Within weeks, they had combined
with representatives from two more important elements -- Britain's
growing Muslim community and its militant trade unions. By October
they had a name: the Stop the War Coalition.
So, according
to the Post, while smoke was still pouring from the ruins of the
WTC towers you had socialists, anti-capitalists, and the anti-nuke
crowd (in other words, people who despise America) combining with
the Muslim community and representatives from its "militant"
trade unions to form the core of the movement.
Clearly the
antiwar movement has spread well beyond this original group and
now encompasses large chunks of people who aren't anti-American,
only antiwar. Still, it matters a great deal who is organizing
the protests. I don't absolve the "true" antiwar protesters
for taking part in a march organized by American-hating groups
any more than I'd absolve someone who marched in a legitimate
protest of immigration laws if it was sponsored by the KKK.
SPEAKING
OF ANTIWAR ACTIVISTS: Mike
Farrell's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday left me speechless
- especially this part:
The
new inspections have a toughened mandate, and as well, they
have more technologically sensitive equipment. They have U-2
overflights. We have, hopefully, the addition of U.S. intelligence,
provided not only by spy satellites, but other sources. We have
the country surrounded by hundreds of thousands of troops. We
have the ability to destroy it, should we choose to do so. But
why not let these inspectors, who are doing a very fine job,
continue to do their job, and if we need more, have more inspectors
there? We can do this job without wasting the lives of innocent
Iraqi civilians, without endangering the lives of our troops,
and it seems to me we can do it far cheaper than we can by invading
and occupying a country that has done us no harm.
The question
is obvious: why exactly do we have a strengthened inspections
regime and U-2 overflights in the first place? Mr. Farell decries
the President's warmongering but doesn't seem to have a clue (or
be honest enough to admit) that it is precisely George W. Bush's
strong stance and the threat of military action that put inspectors
back on the ground in Iraq and has precipitated every single concession
by Saddam Hussein in the last few months. - T.
Bevan 8:14 am
