The UN, US and Iraq IV

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.

And I think, confident of the ground on which The US stands, Perle has issued the legalistic equivalent of "Bring it on

Vindication, Gel. Vindication.

Archive | Main
« previous | November 16, 2003 - November 22, 2003 |
(November 20, 2003 -- 10:22 AM EDT // link // print)
Here's an interesting question: whose idea was it to disband the Iraqi army? Formally, the decision was Paul Bremer's. But that only means that he executed the plan, not that he originated the idea or even necessarily agreed with it. He's taking the rap for it in a lot of corners. But I doubt very much the idea originated with him.

Here's what today's Washington Post article on the subject says ...

The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.
"This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed," Slocombe said. "The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this."

Slocombe recalled discussing the issue with Wolfowitz on May 8 and with Feith several times, including on May 22, the night before Bremer issued the formal order. Trying to put the army back together at that point, he said, "would've been a practical disaster."



Slocombe's an interesting possible author of the decision since he's a highly respected former official from the Clinton Pentagon and a Democrat, if one with a fairly non-partisan hue.

I have heard, reliably, that Cheney was the key force in the decision. And that he was convinced by Chalabi and others in his circle.

On the other hand, an article in the new Newsweek says this ...

When Bremer arrived in Baghdad in mid-May, the insurgency was just getting started, and clots of former Iraqi troops were reappearing, asking to be remobilized. Bremer, who has been widely blamed for reversing the decision of his predecessor, Jay Garner, to hire such men and pay them, was warned he would cause chaos by demobilizing the Army instead. The CIA station chief told him, "That's another 350,000 Iraqis you're pissing off, and they've got guns." According to one official who attended the meeting, Bremer replied: "I don't have any choice ... Those are my instructions." Then Bremer added: "The president told me that de-Baathification is more important."
Needless to say, the word coming directly from the president is not at all inconsistent with Chalabi convincing senior officials, including Cheney, that this was the way to go.

A few other thoughts on this.

First, I sat down for an interview with a well-known defense policy expert at the very end of June. And the first thing out of his mouth was how bad an idea this was, and that no one could understand what they were thinking.

So I really don't think that it's correct to say that this is one of those ideas that seemed good at the time but has produced unintended results. Most people seem to have seen this as a pretty bad idea from word 'go'.

Second, the issue here, I think, isn't so much whose idea this was, as in a particular person, as just how it originated. Was it just bad decision-making by the people in charge -- not every call can be made correctly? Or was it another example of ideologues or those under the influence of Chalabi getting it into their heads that this was a great idea and then pushing it through over the objections of region experts, the CIA, the military, folks at State, etc.?

-- Josh Marshall

sofia

The claims were two...that Bush has kept himself away from any close connection with American military funerals, and
You are wiggling now... It was that Bush had done nothing to comfort families of KIAs. That he hadn't gone near them. I proved you wrong.
...that such behavior is entirely consonant with the PR (not substantive) concentration of this administration.
Wrong again. He didn't go out for a moment of PR glory at the return of our service personnel from detention in China, either--as your article pointed out. It has long been the practice of both Bushs not to show up for a glory jog in situations like this. If it hadn't been an established policy, you'd have a stronger argument.

The first is accurate (if not, please show the case)
I did. You refuse to acknowledge it. Bad form.
and the second is clearly and explicitly voiced by DiIulio. It is because DiIluio likes/admires Bush, and because he has prior experience to compare with his experience in this white house, that his letter becomes compelling.
What is it DiIulio said that you find so fascinating? To me, he portrayed Bush as someone with lofty goals, who had to let go of a few. What President hasn't done this? You are really reaching.

Neither of these points is overly sophisticated, and present themselves pretty easily. But you are lacking in intellectual courage.

Sofia wrote:

Try to get your noggin' around this one, blatham.
You've been pantsed twice. Pure and simple.
Trot out some integrity, and cop to it. Chuckle and pull your pants up.

Bush has attended services.
DiIulio's piece could be used as PR copy. The title could be:
Bush is incredibly good, but not perfect.

You broughth up the issue of Bush's goodness did you not?

The Left always regarded Islam as a "relic of feudalism" and an instrument of reactionary Arab regimes. For their part, the Islamists regarded leftists as atheist enemies who had to be put to the sword.

I just spoke to my friends in Istanbul - thankfully, they and their families are okay. I am sad beyond words right now. Istanbul and Turkish people are such a lovely place/race.

Look what you have done to our world Mr Bush and Mr Blair