Reply
Thu 6 Feb, 2003 07:05 pm
Send in the Marines?
France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, made an intriguing and little-noticed counteroffer at the United Nations.
It was the least he could do, as a leader of the antiwar opposition, in the face of persuasive evidence against Iraq presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell Wednesday.
Mr. de Villepin, notably, didn't dispute that Iraq has now clearly violated Resolution 1441 (and therefore should be subject to "serious consequences") by hiding mobile weapons, refusing interviews with Iraqi scientists, and duping UN inspectors. He didn't even hope that Iraq might confess all, given more time.
Rather, he called for a tripling of the number of UN inspectors in Iraq, locating them across the country, and placing permanent surveillance at sites already inspected.
He asked the other Security Council members: "Why go to war, if there still exists some unused capacity [in weapons inspections]?"
It was the least he could do, as a leader of the antiwar opposition, in the face of persuasive evidence against Iraq presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell Wednesday.Mr. de Villepin, notably, didn't dispute that Iraq has now clearly violated Resolution 1441 (and therefore should be subject to "serious consequences") by hiding mobile weapons, refusing interviews with Iraqi scientists, and duping UN inspectors. He didn't even hope that Iraq might confess all, given more time.Rather, he called for a tripling of the number of UN inspectors in Iraq, locating them across the country, and placing permanent surveillance at sites already inspected.He asked the other Security Council members: "Why go to war, if there still exists some unused capacity [in weapons inspections]?"Mr. Powell anticipated such an argument for more widespread UN inspections. After showing evidence of some 18 trucks carrying mobile biological weapons, he asked how these few vehicles could be found among Iraq's tens of thousands of trucks spread over thousands of miles.Mr. de Villepin's counteroffer, while it ignores the issue of UN resolve being laughably irresolute, may nonetheless be an opening for an agreement among council members - an agreement that still could allow President Bush to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, but do so peacefully.France's idea of an ever-expanding "capacity" for inspections could, at some point, lead to an effective UN occupation, led by US troops as guards or even inspectors.The Hussein regime would be both boxed in physically and humiliated in the eyes of Iraqis and other Arabs. Either Hussein would fall or pick a fight he would lose.This idea is not mere speculation. It's being played out this week as chief inspector Hans Blix travels to Baghdad to demand that Hussein agree to let unmanned US spy planes fly over Iraq.After the U-2s fly, why not let in US Marines? Quelle différence?That both France and Mr. Bush could be this close to an agreement is a testament to both. Despite his effective threat of war, Bush deserves credit for his forbearance in going to the UN. And France has at least presented useful ideas. Both clearly realize the dangers of Iraq's weapons, especially in terrorist hands.With even more forbearance by the US, and more French acceptance of the US interest in urgent disarmament of Iraq, a war could be history before it starts.
What do you think of the French counteroffer. If accepted by Saddam would it be a good alternative to war?
I'd love to see it happen.
This has been c.i.'s suggestion from the go get. The only problem is that there are UN inspectors in Iraq now because of the threat of force. In the absence of credible force, those inspectors are apt to be booted out once again, and we cannot maintain our present deployment of forces indefinately. Is France perhaps volunteering to fill the vacuum should we decide to depart?
Sounds like a plan. Anything is better than war!
Is surrender, subjugation, and extinction better than war? Would the world be better off now, if Hitler was unopposed? Don't you think that if Europe had utilized military force to eject Hitler from the Rhineland, the great number of casualties and destruction of WWII may have been avoided? If communist expansion had not been checked by military force, would the Soviet Union fallen or would it now hold most of the world in the palm of its hand? Which is worse, a total casualty list probably less than the Gulf War now, or perhaps millions in a few years time? It has been pointed out here that the number of deaths in 20th century wars was less than the number of deaths inflicted upon civilians by their own governments. Is death from a misdirected bomb in Iraq more terrible than the deaths that may result from terrorist attacks on your city?
War is indeed a terrible thing, a thing to be avoided if possible. It is not always possible, and failure to act has often in the past led to more destructive wars later. If Saddam had not made unprovoked attacks on his neighbors, had not shown his callous disregard for all human life, had not developed weapons intended for use against innocents, had not supported terrorist organizations, lived up to his commitments and abided by UN resolutions, then there would be no need for military action.
Asherman
How can you compare the French suggestion to the leaving of Hitler unfettered in the 30's. You have made your desire for the attack on Iraq and support of Bush more than clear. However comparing the situation in Iraq with that of Europe in the thirties is more than far fetched. I would ask do you see any merit in the French suggestion at all?
The only issue I'd take with the proposal is that it entirely changes the concept of what is SUPPOSED to be going on.
The UN "Inspectors" aren't supposed to be there looking for hidden weapons. The current resolutions all call for Iraq to identify what weapons they have and have had and to demonstrate to the UN that those weapons have been destroyed. That is what that 17,000 page document the Iraqis handed over was supposed to be. Iraq is supposed to be taking those Inspectors and around and proving to the inspectors that all of those weapons have indeed been destroyed. It is supposed to be up to Iraq to prove it DOESN'T have the weapons it has previously identifed. It's not up to the UN to prove they do have have them.
The French proposal reverses that concept and places all of the burden upon the UN. But.. I'd suggest we go with it and add one caveat. I'd make the French responsible for the Inspections. Make France cough up the Inspectors and certify that Iraq doesn't have any WMDs. Once France signs that certification they become responsible for any use of WMDs by Iraq from that point on out both legally and financially under International Law.
I see little merit in the French desire to prolong a situation that ultimately will have to be resolved by military force. The comparison between Sadam and Hitler isn't really all that far fetched. Chamberlain and the international pacifist movement of the time were willing to believe the most outrageous lies and promises of Hitler to avoid armed conflict. The reaped the whirlwind. Saddam, another meglomaniac, marched into Kuwait and the world ejected him, but failed to finish the job.
The suggestion that inspectors and an occupying force to insure inspected areas remain sanitary would not work. First, Saddam would never agree to the occupation of Iraq in slow motion. Second, even if he did the cost in resources would probably be greater than war. If the intent is to force Saddam into making the initial attack in a new round of fighting, that surrenders the initiative to him. Maintaining the initiative is an important consideration in conducting military operations.
There appears to be no way around the coming conflict. These are the alternatives as I see them:
1. Saddam disarms in compliance with UN resolutions and his obligations.
2. Saddam departs the scene and a new Iraqi government divests itself of the objectionable arms.
3. The UN can pass another resolution specifically authorizing military force followed by items 1, 2, or commencement of hostilities.
4. The UN can pass a resolution forbidding military force against Saddam's Iraq. This alternative would be the practical result if the UN were to extend inspections into some indefinite future.
5. The UN can stand mute, and let the US led military disarm Saddam.
6. The US can stand-down it's military.
Only alternative 5 has a very high probability of actually happening.
Alternative 3 is second most likely. Alternatives 1 and 6 are equally improbable, except as a product of one of the other alternatives. If the UN chooses alternative 4, Saddam wins -- at least in the short term.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace