A rumor of war....

 

 

 

"Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war"

Julius Caesar

Shakespeare

The winds of war are once again starting to blow in the Middle East. There is a good chance we are going to launch a missile and air attack on yet another Muslim country which has not attacked the United States. Our current Commander in Chief, who was so critical of our former Commander in Chief for our involvement in Iraq, believes he is "justified" in launching an attack. Why? In his words yesterday, "...there could be a chance Syria's chemical weapons could be used on the United States."

When we went into Iraq, we did it for a number of reasons. One of which was the suspicion of WMD, the most prevalent being chemical munitions. How do we know Saddam had them? First off, just like in Syria, Saddam used them on his own people as well as the Iranians. In addition, our allies, former President Clinton, and our intelligence services all agreed. However, the main reason for going into Iraq is quite legal, and authorized by the United Nations.

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 Resolution 660 has never been rescinded by the United Nations.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.

 

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.

History and facts are stubborn things. Our involvement was just as justified as any involvement might be in Syria. Those on the Left who wanted President Bush tried as a "war criminal" need to bone up on current history.