Stop the War! What War?

 

 

 

This is an article I published years ago depicting an acurate history of the Iraq War.

 

It is hard to drive around town without seeing bumper stickers or lawn signs that say “Stop the war! Bring the troops home!” It is also hard to watch TV or listen to the radio without hearing some pundit talking about the evils of the “Bush War” or the “War for Oil”. I have heard and seen enough of this dribble to move me to action to set the record straight.

First some recent history concerning our relationship with Iraq. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait for the expressed purpose of annexation. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 662 condemned Iraq's invasion and annexation plans and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Resolution 660 has never been rescinded by the United Nations. A United Nations ultimatum, Security Council Resolution 678, followed on November 29, 1990.  It stipulated that if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did not remove his troops from Kuwait by January 15, 1991 a U.S.-led coalition was authorized to drive them out. 

Early in the morning of January 17, Baghdad time, the U.S.-led coalition launched air attacks against Iraqi targets.  On February 24, coalition ground forces begin their attack.  On February 27, Kuwait City was declared liberated, and with allied forces having driven well into Iraq, President Bush and his advisers decided to halt the war.  A cease-fire took effect at 8:00 the following morning.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, signed by Iraq on April 3^rd, 1991 spelled out the conditions by which the cease fire would remain in effect. From a viewpoint of how the United Nations charter works, if resolution 687 was violated, then resolution 678 (which authorized hostilities with Iraq) would be in effect.

As we know, it is well documented that Iraq has violated the terms and conditions of 687 numerous times. So many times in fact, that the United Nations passed an additional 17 resolutions condemning and warning Iraq to adhere to the conditions of resolution 687. To use an analogy, Iraq was on probation after committing a crime and violated (many times) the condition of probation. The results of Iraq’s actions were that Desert Storm (under resolution 678) would and should continue.

Holding Iraq in “material breach” of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council decided to afford it a “final opportunity to comply” with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687.

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, signed on November 8, 2002, the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities.  It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

This brings us to the current situation in Iraq. Iraq was warned numerous times to comply with resolution 687, culminated by the final warning in resolution 1441. The United Nations should have first imposed economic and military sanctions on Iraq and then followed that up with a resumption of conflict by a newly created coalition. Due to the inability of the United Nations to execute those remedies, the United States, along with a much smaller coalition than Desert Shield/Storm, went into Iraq and removed its government.