Full Version: The US on Iraq
First of all a statement of purpose:
The issue of Iraq is one of the most seriously disturbing issues this country has faced in the past decade.
Simply put, it seems the almost unavoidable fact that hundreds of coalition soldiers have died under false pretenses. I'm going to focus this entire thread on straight talk so let's not play around here. The main focus of the argument for war put forth by the coalition was Iraq's possession and possible proliferation of Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Weapons. All other reasons were put forth as secondary at best.
In our nation in particular it was said that our armed forces were operating to make us safer by eliminating the threat of Saddam Hussein and his WMD.
Now that this has turned out to be a virtually non-existent threat, questions must be answered and a careful review of all U.S. policy toward Iraq under the heading of weapons of mass destruction must be completed.
Some will use this as an indictment of George W. Bush, which is fine.
But, we must first find out, in context, what exactly Bush is guilty of.
In my opinion, one of the most useful ways to do this is to compare Bush's policy to the previous administration in order to find out if he is guilty of an extraordinary evil.
We have had topics on this in the past and the issue has been dodged to death.
Again, this thread is for straight talk so let's not pull any punches or resort to partisan bashing since this thread is going to include two very polarizing figures.
First Bill Clinton, say what you will about the guy but he had to have guts to say this...
Clinton announces Iraq strikes: Full text
Three-quarters of target sites 'destroyed by Fox'
70-hour blitz doubles tally of Desert Storm
Why would that take bravery? because the "international community" was none too pleased about Operation "Desert Fox".
Russian MPs brand Clinton 'sex maniac'
and...
Yeltsin demands end to strikes: Statement
Check this map out...
This was not totally without reason. Clinton too faced allegations of impropriety concerning weapons inspectors...
Butler denies serving U.S. war aims
Uproar as Annan tries to sack chief of Unscom
Some may think these questions old news, I will remind them this is the "History Debate" forum
An example of some straight talk on this issue will introduce our questions.
So then, do you agree with Abs that Clinton was after Iraqi oil?
What, then, was his true reason for ordering bombing attacks on Iraq in '98?
What light does this shead, if any, on motivations for GWB's recent attack on Iraq
Was Operation Desert Fox a justified act of aggression?
I'm not suggesting this is the be-all-and-end-all to the Iraq debate, attach as much (or little) importance to it as you wish. It is, however, a very stubborn piece of the puzzle...
The issue of Iraq is one of the most seriously disturbing issues this country has faced in the past decade.
Simply put, it seems the almost unavoidable fact that hundreds of coalition soldiers have died under false pretenses. I'm going to focus this entire thread on straight talk so let's not play around here. The main focus of the argument for war put forth by the coalition was Iraq's possession and possible proliferation of Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Weapons. All other reasons were put forth as secondary at best.
In our nation in particular it was said that our armed forces were operating to make us safer by eliminating the threat of Saddam Hussein and his WMD.
Now that this has turned out to be a virtually non-existent threat, questions must be answered and a careful review of all U.S. policy toward Iraq under the heading of weapons of mass destruction must be completed.
Some will use this as an indictment of George W. Bush, which is fine.
But, we must first find out, in context, what exactly Bush is guilty of.
In my opinion, one of the most useful ways to do this is to compare Bush's policy to the previous administration in order to find out if he is guilty of an extraordinary evil.
We have had topics on this in the past and the issue has been dodged to death.
Again, this thread is for straight talk so let's not pull any punches or resort to partisan bashing since this thread is going to include two very polarizing figures.
First Bill Clinton, say what you will about the guy but he had to have guts to say this...
QUOTE
Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and its military capacity to threaten its neighbours.[...]
When Saddam still failed to comply [speaking of his kicking out of UN inspectors previously] we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. [...]
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbours, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbours. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
When Saddam still failed to comply [speaking of his kicking out of UN inspectors previously] we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. [...]
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbours, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbours. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Clinton announces Iraq strikes: Full text
Three-quarters of target sites 'destroyed by Fox'
70-hour blitz doubles tally of Desert Storm
Why would that take bravery? because the "international community" was none too pleased about Operation "Desert Fox".
QUOTE
Some extreme deputies have called President Clinton a "sexual maniac".
It is a view echoed in the Russian press, with the normally liberal newspaper Kommersant running a banner headline on its front page "A military-sexual romance" ["voenno-polovoi roman"] telling its readers that "Iraqi children are suffering for Clinton's love" ["Irakskiye deti stradayut za lyubov' Klintona"]. ...Far more unusual is the reaction of the Russian executive, which has recalled its ambassadors from Washington and London.
It is a view echoed in the Russian press, with the normally liberal newspaper Kommersant running a banner headline on its front page "A military-sexual romance" ["voenno-polovoi roman"] telling its readers that "Iraqi children are suffering for Clinton's love" ["Irakskiye deti stradayut za lyubov' Klintona"]. ...Far more unusual is the reaction of the Russian executive, which has recalled its ambassadors from Washington and London.
Russian MPs brand Clinton 'sex maniac'
and...
Yeltsin demands end to strikes: Statement
Check this map out...
This was not totally without reason. Clinton too faced allegations of impropriety concerning weapons inspectors...
Butler denies serving U.S. war aims
Uproar as Annan tries to sack chief of Unscom
Some may think these questions old news, I will remind them this is the "History Debate" forum
An example of some straight talk on this issue will introduce our questions.
QUOTE(Abs Like Jesus)
I think the pursuit of the oil transcends the Bush administration, personally. Bush just has the dumb luck of having prior links to oil companies to be a bigger target.
So then, do you agree with Abs that Clinton was after Iraqi oil?
What, then, was his true reason for ordering bombing attacks on Iraq in '98?
What light does this shead, if any, on motivations for GWB's recent attack on Iraq
Was Operation Desert Fox a justified act of aggression?
I'm not suggesting this is the be-all-and-end-all to the Iraq debate, attach as much (or little) importance to it as you wish. It is, however, a very stubborn piece of the puzzle...
Some further information which may be of use, particularly to the last question
More on possible using the UN inspectors as spies by the Clinton administration from the "New York Times" in which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that such spying would be harmful for UN disarmament efforts world wide. It can be argued that Operation Desert Fox effectively ended Iraqi disarmament from Dec 1998 until George W. Bush called for their return. Certainly this is how Ritter describes it in his book Endgame.
...add to that attacks by Democrats on critics of the operation (such as Scott Ritter) and the fact that the Clinton administration claimed a cooperation between Iraq and Serbia (Iraq was said to have given Serbia aid on anti-air defenses to use against the US) and we have a situation which is strikingly familiar, in my judgment, to our current situation in Iraq.
QUOTE(New Internationalist @ Sep99 Issue 316, p16, 2p, 1c)
Until his resignation last summer William 'Scott' Ritter was known as the toughest of the UNSCOM inspectors who scoured Iraq for Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction. Ritter joined UNSCOM in 1991 when he left the US Marines where he had been involved in arms-control work and inspections in Russia. He eventually resigned amid much publicity: 'when it became clear that the US and Richard Butler, Executive Director of UNSCOM. were manipulating inspections as a vehicle for maintaining economic sanctions, instead of disarmament. I could not be part of that. My job was to find the weapons.' [...]UNSCOM foundered on accusations -- later proved to be accurate -- that US Intelligence Services used it to spy on Iraq for purposes unrelated to its disarmament mission. Ritter himself was at the centre of this debate as he was in charge of the Concealment Inspection Unit which secretly installed listening devices to intercept Iraqi communications.
QUOTE(Human Events @ Vol. 54 Issue 49, p6, 1/4p)
Scott Ritter resigned as a UN arms inspector in Iraq earlier this year to protest what he said were efforts by the Clinton Administration to impede arms inspectors' efforts to aggressively ferret out Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Last Thursday, in a by-lined piece by New York Post reporter Christopher Francescani, Ritter is quoted as saying, "What [Chief UN Weapons Inspector] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify bombing."
The Post reported that, "Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the month-long Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.'"
Said Ritter: "You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice."
The Post reported that, "Ritter said U.S. government sources told him three weeks ago when the inspections resumed that 'the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan [the month-long Muslim holiday beginning this weekend] and impeachment.'"
Said Ritter: "You have no choice but to interpret this as 'Wag the Dog.' You have no choice."
More on possible using the UN inspectors as spies by the Clinton administration from the "New York Times" in which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that such spying would be harmful for UN disarmament efforts world wide. It can be argued that Operation Desert Fox effectively ended Iraqi disarmament from Dec 1998 until George W. Bush called for their return. Certainly this is how Ritter describes it in his book Endgame.
QUOTE(Scott Ritter @ Endgame pg 198)
In using UNSCOM's disarmament mission to justify its own ill-defined objectives the Clinton administration has discredited UNSCOM. As a result the U.S. has ceded its moral stanidng to others, such as the French, who now seek to salvage a situation spinning out of control.[...]The policy of containment has failed.
...add to that attacks by Democrats on critics of the operation (such as Scott Ritter) and the fact that the Clinton administration claimed a cooperation between Iraq and Serbia (Iraq was said to have given Serbia aid on anti-air defenses to use against the US) and we have a situation which is strikingly familiar, in my judgment, to our current situation in Iraq.
So then, do you agree with Abs that Clinton was after Iraqi oil?
No.
What, then, was his true reason for ordering bombing attacks on Iraq in '98?
The lead-up to Desert Fox originated during March '96 - October '97, when Iraq impeded inspectors from entering Iraqi security service and military facilities, and interfered with some UNSCOM flights. These actions were not resolved by a March '96 side agreement between UNSCOM and Iraq governing pre-notification of inspections of defense and security sites, and prompted Resolution 1060 (12 June '96) and other Council statements (such as the one on 13 June '97) demanding Iraqi cooperation. Resolution 1115 (21 June '97) threatened travel restrictions against Iraqi officials committing the infractions, and Resolution 1134 (23 October '97) again threatened a travel ban and suspended sanctions reviews until April '98.
An UNSCOM statement on 15 December '98 declared that Iraq had refused to yield known WMD-related documents and that it was obstructing inspections. All inspectors withdrew and Operation Desert Fox - the 70 hour US and Brit bombing campaign - began.
What light does this shead, if any, on motivations for GWB's recent attack on Iraq?
It clearly demonstrates the history of Iraqi intransigence vis-a-vis weapons inspections in the face of diplomatic and political pressure, economic sanctions, and the use of force short of war.
Was Operation Desert Fox a justified act of aggression?
See above.
For further reading:
Statement of GEN Zinni to the Senate Armed Services Committee
The Lessons of Desert Fox: A Preliminary Analysis
Desert Fox: Key Official US and British Statements and Press Conferences
House of Commons Research Paper: Iraq - Desert Fox and Policy Developments
The Role of British Forces in Operation Desert Fox
CRS Report for Congress: Iraq War Background and Issues Overview
No.
What, then, was his true reason for ordering bombing attacks on Iraq in '98?
The lead-up to Desert Fox originated during March '96 - October '97, when Iraq impeded inspectors from entering Iraqi security service and military facilities, and interfered with some UNSCOM flights. These actions were not resolved by a March '96 side agreement between UNSCOM and Iraq governing pre-notification of inspections of defense and security sites, and prompted Resolution 1060 (12 June '96) and other Council statements (such as the one on 13 June '97) demanding Iraqi cooperation. Resolution 1115 (21 June '97) threatened travel restrictions against Iraqi officials committing the infractions, and Resolution 1134 (23 October '97) again threatened a travel ban and suspended sanctions reviews until April '98.
An UNSCOM statement on 15 December '98 declared that Iraq had refused to yield known WMD-related documents and that it was obstructing inspections. All inspectors withdrew and Operation Desert Fox - the 70 hour US and Brit bombing campaign - began.
What light does this shead, if any, on motivations for GWB's recent attack on Iraq?
It clearly demonstrates the history of Iraqi intransigence vis-a-vis weapons inspections in the face of diplomatic and political pressure, economic sanctions, and the use of force short of war.
Was Operation Desert Fox a justified act of aggression?
See above.
For further reading:
Statement of GEN Zinni to the Senate Armed Services Committee
The Lessons of Desert Fox: A Preliminary Analysis
Desert Fox: Key Official US and British Statements and Press Conferences
House of Commons Research Paper: Iraq - Desert Fox and Policy Developments
The Role of British Forces in Operation Desert Fox
CRS Report for Congress: Iraq War Background and Issues Overview
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.