November 10, 2002
Pressure Mounts on Iraq to Accept U.N. Demands
(Reuters, November 10, 2002)
[U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice said Iraq would be held to a ``zero tolerance'' standard on arms inspections under the new resolution. Any breach would trigger serious consequences, she told Fox News Sunday.
Disarmament inspections originally started after Iraqi forces were expelled from neighboring Kuwait by a U.S.-led coalition in the 1991 Gulf War. Inspectors withdrew in 1998 in a wrangle over access to Saddam's palaces.
``The next material breach by Saddam Hussein has got to have serious consequences. I think it's pretty clear what that may mean. The (U.S.) president has made no secret of the fact that he intends to use force if the Iraqis cannot be brought into compliance in other way,'' Rice said.
She said Bush reserved the right to use force without Security Council approval if Iraq violated the resolution. But Washington would initially discuss with the Council the consequences of any breach.
In Washington, officials said President Bush had approved plans for the invasion of Iraq if it failed to comply fully with the resolution.
It's fairly amusing to listen to the foreign ministries from other countries describe all the concessions they won from the U.S. and then to hear Ms Rice tell them what they really just agreed to.
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 10, 2002 1:17 PM
Nobody, including Bush, seems to understand
what a disaster the resolution was.
The inspectors are gonna find the stuff lying
around, right, the Iraqis haven't been busy
during the past months of shillyshallying?
And, of course, we all agree that the French
etc. will be at least cheering from the sidelines
once the intransigence of the Iraqis is
demonstrated to them.
Bush sits down to ramadan feasts with the ]
Doesn't anybody get it?
You commend Rice. So what was she doing
the last few months? What was the point?
Intransigence is a violation.
The point, Harry, is that if Iraq cooperates then the inspection process steadily weakens his position: we get to spend time finding how all his resources are disposed, destroying some of his weapons of mass destruction, meeting with mid-level Iraqi officials and persuading them to turn sides, and positioning troops within Iraq so that the war can finish in a blitzkrieg when it starts. And if he doesn't cooperate, we're no worse off militarily -- the war can start whenever we want -- but we've won a diplomatic victory based on whatever credibility the UN has.
Or not, as the case may be.
I think it was Damian Penny who commented
on a report that 4 nations had smallpox and
one was France: "great, that means
everybody's got it.'
Do you guys not understand what has been
going out on the trucks bringing in the DVD
players from Jordan?
I was being sarcastic about intransigence,
Orrin. If the French (and the rest) haven't
noticed any already, they never will.
Clauswitz said coalitions are always a bad
idea. He had had plenty of experience with
them. He was right.
So is it your impression that Saddam will stay in power?
Clauswitz also said that "war is politics by other means". What Bush has been doing these last few months is pursuing direct political means to supplement his military means. The evidence is clear - Bush is a big believe in converging forces. Over the last 6 months Bush has broken the Democrats on this issue, solidified the US political position of himself and his allies and put a ring in the nose of the UNSC. He's not going to make his father's mistake and it looks like he plans to avoid it by systematically eliminating the sources of failure before he drops the hammer.
As for coalitions, I think another part of what Bush has done is make it clear that being part of our coalition is a favor from
the US, to to
the US. Nations that don't play nice don't get to show up.
It's particularly amusing to read pundits trying to figure out why Syria is going along with us. You don't suppose they're worried they could be next, do you?
I think Harry's point was that Saddam has had 8 months since March to develop nuclear weapons, migrate biological weapons into the U.S. with al Quaeda terrorists, etc., and that if we had attacked and defeated Saddam earlier we might be better off. This is unrealistic: our military wasn't ready, Saddam's neighbors weren't ready, the American people weren't sold yet. Now all is in place. Better doing the job right now, then doing the job half-assed earlier.
Our military was ready a long time ago, thanks to Jimmy Carter, who doesn't get much applause here but ought to. He was a professional officer and understood logistics, which is more than most of the bright boys riding limos around Washington today do.
If we'd gone in, on our own, several months ago, it would not have been over for several months minus about 3 days. The U.N. would be welcome to debate the heinousness of the deed from now to forever.
I said before, you don't have to change minds if you correct behavior. The Japanese are just a brutally racist as ever but they are no longer raping and murdering their way through east Asia.
Clausewitz said (among several other things):
a) "War is the continuation of politics by other means" (435 hits on Google);
b) "War is the continuation of policy by other means"; (118 hits)
c) "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means"; (15 hits)
Not that Google is always an indicator of accuracy, and perhaps it doesn't really matter all that much; but can any of you channellers out there shed some light on what the good baron really said?
When Carter sent in the guys for the Desert One rescue mission the Israelis started picking up the radio transmissions, which were being sent over open channels, so they jammed them for us. Spare us the Jimmy Carter professional schtick. The hostages got out when Reagan came to office because the Iranians were afraid he'd turn Qom into an ashtray.
Carter almost became the first president ever to get through a term without getting any of his citizens killed over politics. Not a bad record.
It wasn't Carter himself who let down the side on the rescue mission. The commander chickened out. Presidents only direct, they don't carry out missions.
It was Carter who started the program that supplied the logistics that made both Iraq I and, soon, Iraq II possible. Reagan bought lots of bullets but never understood beans.
Whether you admire Carter or not, fairness requires giving him credit for restoring the logistical base of the military, which had been neglected before him and is very little understood (not at all by Clinton) by his successors.