The Iraq FAQ
Regardless of the current state of affairs in Iraq, there are a lot of erroneous statements that float around about the Iraq War. Some are misconceptions, some are conspiracy theories, some are flat out lies, and others are based on preliminary information that was later disproven. Over the last few days, I've put together a list of some of the most common inaccuracies about Iraq, found corrective sources for most, and answered all of them. This list may grow at some point, but for now, I'm posting what I have.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, that information is power. People can possess this information and still disagree with the Iraq War, or dislike President Bush. Intellectual honesty counts: it's better to be informed and disagree, than disagree (or agree, for that matter) in ignorance.
Q: Isn't the war in Iraq all about oil?
A: It would have been much easier to ease the sanctions on Iraq and import Iraqi oil legally (albeit immorally). While oil, and the petroleum resources in the broader Middle East are a factor, saying that the Iraq War was a war for oil is every bit as simplistic as saying that the American Civil War was about slavery; and the latter statement is more accurate than the former.
Q: Didn't President Bush invade Iraq because he wanted revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to have his father killed?
A: What's more likely, that the Iraq War was some giant revenge conspiracy, or that Iraq had been a continual problem for several decades, drawing the attention of three American presidents? If Bush's only target was Saddam Hussein, why didn't he have covert CIA operatives infiltrate Iraq, hunt Hussein down, and assassinate him? The Bush/Saddam Revenge theory may be very scandalous and exciting, but there is no evidence to back it up.
Q: Wasn't the invasion of Iraq prompted solely by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, because of their shady business interests?
A: While President Bush and Vice President Cheney have ties to big business, this has more to do with the versatility of leadership skills and networking. Unless someone provides hard evidence of a conspiracy, this claim will remain nothing more than a conspiracy theory. However, the French and Russians, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War, were found on numerous occasions to have had shady dealings with the Hussein Regime that most likely influenced their policies of opposition to the 2003 invasion. Russian diplomats unsuccessfully tipped the Iraqis off to American operational plans, a Russian company sold GPS jammers to Iraq, and numerous French officials were indicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal. A greater deal of evidence exists for corruption among Iraq War opponents than for Iraq War participants.
Q: Didn't America supply weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? All of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction were American in origin anyway, so what moral or legal authority did America have to invade Iraq?
A: The American government provided minimal assistance to Iraq during the 1980's because Iraq was seen (accurately at the time) as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq War. American contributions were less than one percent of international arms sales to Iraq during the period in question; this is why coalition forces in 1991 were shooting down Soviet-made MiG aircraft and T-72 tanks. Iraq was a socialist state, and a Soviet client nation. American ties to Iraq were never especially strong; although some dual-use sales were highly questionable, the level of support for Iraq from America has been vastly overstated by critics of the United States.
Q: The 2003 invasion was the right war at the wrong time. If Hussein was going to be removed, shouldn't it have happened in 1991?
A: The situation in Iraq right now may have been prevented by a full 1991 invasion. However, the original 1991 United Nations mandate was limited to liberating Kuwait - no contingency for carrying out justice against the Iraqi regime was allowed. Had the Coalition continued with a direct campaign against Iraq itself, coalition members such as Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates would have withdrawn their support in protest. After 9/11, the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's support for international terrorism outweighed the threat of opposition from Iraq's neighbors. So, while a solution in 1991 would likely have been better than the same solution in 2003, international politics prevented a decisive solution at that time. Also, had Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay taken over upon his death, the situation would have been worse than it had been under Saddam.
Q: Didn't Ambassador Joe Wilson refute President Bush's claims that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger?
A: Joe Wilson was incorrect; subsequent investigations have confirmed that the Iraqi government sought yellow cake uranium from Niger prior to the 2003 invasion (link, link). At any rate, President Bush's statement during the 2003 State of the Union address reported only what British intelligence had reported to American officials; this may sound nit-picky, but semantics are important in matters of international politics. Coincidentally, Iraqi uranium oxide ("yellow cake") was found in a shipment of scrap metal in Rotterdam in January of 2004.
Q: Wasn't the intelligence that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented at the Security Council in 2003 overplayed and inaccurate?
A: Every intelligence agency in the world agreed on the existence of illicit Iraqi weapons, and the intelligence provided by the State Department in early 2003 was the best intelligence available from the American and British intelligence agencies. What's more likely: that the entire world was wrong about Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons, or that the illicit materials were removed in the months leading up to the invasion?
Q: Didn't they fail to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
A: Hundreds of chemical and biological rounds have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. In addition, an Iraqi chemical weapons lab was found in 2005. In 2004, Danish troops found chemical-ready artillery rounds; although they were later determined to have no chemical residue, why would the Hussein regime keep chemical rounds if it didn't intend to reconstitute its illicit weapons programs?
Q: Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, they couldn't have possibly been moved; could they?
A: The lengthy lead-up to the Iraq War provided ample opportunity for Hussein to arrange removal of illicit weapons. One example of this is the possible removal of weapons, explosives, and documents by Russian operatives directly prior to the 2003 invasion; note the previous assistance the Iraqis received from the Russians, and imagine the fallout Russia would have faced if invading forces had found illegal Russian contributions to Iraq's weapons programs. What's more likely: that the Iraqis destroyed their remaining weapons on good faith after deceiving and ousting the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspectors, or that the Hussein regime used the time to temporarily (or so they hoped) spirit their illicit supplies away to their allies? The HMX that disappeared from the al Qaqaa depot can be used in the development of nuclear weapons - it was forbidden for Iraq to possess under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Doesn't this seem more like evidence of a nascent nuclear program than a coincidental dual-use material?
Q: The Iraqis had no ties to al Qaeda. How could Iraq have been any kind of threat to the United States?
A: There is a difference between al Qaeda and 9/11; there is strong evidence for an operational link between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda, even though there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. (For the record, the Bush Administration never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11, only that they were investigating the possibility; again, semantics are important in international politics.) The Hussein regime was one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism; most people don't realize that terrorism goes beyond Osama bin Laden, and that the various Islamist terrorist groups are nearly all related in one way or another. Hussein publicly funded Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. These groups have been listed since at least as far back as the Clinton administration as foreign terrorist groups that threaten America's national security and interests, according to a list published by the State Department. While the public face of the war revolved around illegal weapons, it was Hussein's support for terrorist organizations that was the biggest threat, and the reason for the coalition invasion.
Q: Wasn't Saddam Hussein contained? How could he have possibly threatened the region or the rest of the world?
A: Aside from his aforementioned sponsorship of terrorist organizations, the Hussein regime had launched unprovoked, unilateral attacks on Israel and Kuwait. Iraq also initiated an eight year war against Iran in which the Iraqi regime used chemical and biological weapons. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraqi military forces made frequent attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the U.N. mandated No-Fly zones. Hussein was also able to smuggle in illegal contraband, just not as quickly as before. Hussein's options may have been limited under the sanctions, but his containment was far from complete.
Q: The Iraqis were under no threat from Saddam Hussein. Weren't Iraqi citizens better off before the war?
A: Under Hussein, the Iraqi government carried out a systematic program of destruction against the Kurds and Shi'is. This included employment of chemical and biological weapons. The Hussein regime had a well documented history of torturing and murdering dissidents and undesirables. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Hussein regime systematically corrupted the U.N. Oil-for-Food program; a program designed to feed the Iraqi people during punitive sanctions was perverted for the benefit of the Hussein regime, United Nations officials, and foreign agencies that provided illicit materials to Iraq illegally. While the average lifespan for an Iraqi citizen declined sharply after 1991 and the infant mortality rate climbed, the Iraqi government built palaces for Saddam Hussein while simultaneously importing contraband materials.
Q: Wasn't the Iraq War illegal? Didn't it violate international law?
A: Legal authority for the 2003 invasion went beyond UNSC Resolution 1441. Authority existed from Saddam Hussein's violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire treaty. Coalition withdrawal was legally contingent upon Saddam Hussein's full compliance with the pertinent U.N. Security Council resolutions. Aside from being non-compliant with UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait), Iraq was non-compliant with seventeen UNSC resolutions over the course of twelve years. Admittedly, an air of vigilantism exists, but legal authority existed for the 2003 invasion based on Hussein's near-complete material breach of the aforementioned resolutions. The Iraq War was an enforcement of international law, not a violation of international law.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, that information is power. People can possess this information and still disagree with the Iraq War, or dislike President Bush. Intellectual honesty counts: it's better to be informed and disagree, than disagree (or agree, for that matter) in ignorance.
Q: Isn't the war in Iraq all about oil?
A: It would have been much easier to ease the sanctions on Iraq and import Iraqi oil legally (albeit immorally). While oil, and the petroleum resources in the broader Middle East are a factor, saying that the Iraq War was a war for oil is every bit as simplistic as saying that the American Civil War was about slavery; and the latter statement is more accurate than the former.
Q: Didn't President Bush invade Iraq because he wanted revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to have his father killed?
A: What's more likely, that the Iraq War was some giant revenge conspiracy, or that Iraq had been a continual problem for several decades, drawing the attention of three American presidents? If Bush's only target was Saddam Hussein, why didn't he have covert CIA operatives infiltrate Iraq, hunt Hussein down, and assassinate him? The Bush/Saddam Revenge theory may be very scandalous and exciting, but there is no evidence to back it up.
Q: Wasn't the invasion of Iraq prompted solely by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, because of their shady business interests?
A: While President Bush and Vice President Cheney have ties to big business, this has more to do with the versatility of leadership skills and networking. Unless someone provides hard evidence of a conspiracy, this claim will remain nothing more than a conspiracy theory. However, the French and Russians, who vehemently opposed the Iraq War, were found on numerous occasions to have had shady dealings with the Hussein Regime that most likely influenced their policies of opposition to the 2003 invasion. Russian diplomats unsuccessfully tipped the Iraqis off to American operational plans, a Russian company sold GPS jammers to Iraq, and numerous French officials were indicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal. A greater deal of evidence exists for corruption among Iraq War opponents than for Iraq War participants.
Q: Didn't America supply weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? All of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction were American in origin anyway, so what moral or legal authority did America have to invade Iraq?
A: The American government provided minimal assistance to Iraq during the 1980's because Iraq was seen (accurately at the time) as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq War. American contributions were less than one percent of international arms sales to Iraq during the period in question; this is why coalition forces in 1991 were shooting down Soviet-made MiG aircraft and T-72 tanks. Iraq was a socialist state, and a Soviet client nation. American ties to Iraq were never especially strong; although some dual-use sales were highly questionable, the level of support for Iraq from America has been vastly overstated by critics of the United States.
Q: The 2003 invasion was the right war at the wrong time. If Hussein was going to be removed, shouldn't it have happened in 1991?
A: The situation in Iraq right now may have been prevented by a full 1991 invasion. However, the original 1991 United Nations mandate was limited to liberating Kuwait - no contingency for carrying out justice against the Iraqi regime was allowed. Had the Coalition continued with a direct campaign against Iraq itself, coalition members such as Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates would have withdrawn their support in protest. After 9/11, the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's support for international terrorism outweighed the threat of opposition from Iraq's neighbors. So, while a solution in 1991 would likely have been better than the same solution in 2003, international politics prevented a decisive solution at that time. Also, had Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay taken over upon his death, the situation would have been worse than it had been under Saddam.
Q: Didn't Ambassador Joe Wilson refute President Bush's claims that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger?
A: Joe Wilson was incorrect; subsequent investigations have confirmed that the Iraqi government sought yellow cake uranium from Niger prior to the 2003 invasion (link, link). At any rate, President Bush's statement during the 2003 State of the Union address reported only what British intelligence had reported to American officials; this may sound nit-picky, but semantics are important in matters of international politics. Coincidentally, Iraqi uranium oxide ("yellow cake") was found in a shipment of scrap metal in Rotterdam in January of 2004.
Q: Wasn't the intelligence that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented at the Security Council in 2003 overplayed and inaccurate?
A: Every intelligence agency in the world agreed on the existence of illicit Iraqi weapons, and the intelligence provided by the State Department in early 2003 was the best intelligence available from the American and British intelligence agencies. What's more likely: that the entire world was wrong about Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons, or that the illicit materials were removed in the months leading up to the invasion?
Q: Didn't they fail to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
A: Hundreds of chemical and biological rounds have been found in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. In addition, an Iraqi chemical weapons lab was found in 2005. In 2004, Danish troops found chemical-ready artillery rounds; although they were later determined to have no chemical residue, why would the Hussein regime keep chemical rounds if it didn't intend to reconstitute its illicit weapons programs?
Q: Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, they couldn't have possibly been moved; could they?
A: The lengthy lead-up to the Iraq War provided ample opportunity for Hussein to arrange removal of illicit weapons. One example of this is the possible removal of weapons, explosives, and documents by Russian operatives directly prior to the 2003 invasion; note the previous assistance the Iraqis received from the Russians, and imagine the fallout Russia would have faced if invading forces had found illegal Russian contributions to Iraq's weapons programs. What's more likely: that the Iraqis destroyed their remaining weapons on good faith after deceiving and ousting the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspectors, or that the Hussein regime used the time to temporarily (or so they hoped) spirit their illicit supplies away to their allies? The HMX that disappeared from the al Qaqaa depot can be used in the development of nuclear weapons - it was forbidden for Iraq to possess under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire. Doesn't this seem more like evidence of a nascent nuclear program than a coincidental dual-use material?
Q: The Iraqis had no ties to al Qaeda. How could Iraq have been any kind of threat to the United States?
A: There is a difference between al Qaeda and 9/11; there is strong evidence for an operational link between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda, even though there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. (For the record, the Bush Administration never claimed a link between Iraq and 9/11, only that they were investigating the possibility; again, semantics are important in international politics.) The Hussein regime was one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism; most people don't realize that terrorism goes beyond Osama bin Laden, and that the various Islamist terrorist groups are nearly all related in one way or another. Hussein publicly funded Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. These groups have been listed since at least as far back as the Clinton administration as foreign terrorist groups that threaten America's national security and interests, according to a list published by the State Department. While the public face of the war revolved around illegal weapons, it was Hussein's support for terrorist organizations that was the biggest threat, and the reason for the coalition invasion.
Q: Wasn't Saddam Hussein contained? How could he have possibly threatened the region or the rest of the world?
A: Aside from his aforementioned sponsorship of terrorist organizations, the Hussein regime had launched unprovoked, unilateral attacks on Israel and Kuwait. Iraq also initiated an eight year war against Iran in which the Iraqi regime used chemical and biological weapons. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraqi military forces made frequent attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the U.N. mandated No-Fly zones. Hussein was also able to smuggle in illegal contraband, just not as quickly as before. Hussein's options may have been limited under the sanctions, but his containment was far from complete.
Q: The Iraqis were under no threat from Saddam Hussein. Weren't Iraqi citizens better off before the war?
A: Under Hussein, the Iraqi government carried out a systematic program of destruction against the Kurds and Shi'is. This included employment of chemical and biological weapons. The Hussein regime had a well documented history of torturing and murdering dissidents and undesirables. Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Hussein regime systematically corrupted the U.N. Oil-for-Food program; a program designed to feed the Iraqi people during punitive sanctions was perverted for the benefit of the Hussein regime, United Nations officials, and foreign agencies that provided illicit materials to Iraq illegally. While the average lifespan for an Iraqi citizen declined sharply after 1991 and the infant mortality rate climbed, the Iraqi government built palaces for Saddam Hussein while simultaneously importing contraband materials.
Q: Wasn't the Iraq War illegal? Didn't it violate international law?
A: Legal authority for the 2003 invasion went beyond UNSC Resolution 1441. Authority existed from Saddam Hussein's violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire treaty. Coalition withdrawal was legally contingent upon Saddam Hussein's full compliance with the pertinent U.N. Security Council resolutions. Aside from being non-compliant with UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait), Iraq was non-compliant with seventeen UNSC resolutions over the course of twelve years. Admittedly, an air of vigilantism exists, but legal authority existed for the 2003 invasion based on Hussein's near-complete material breach of the aforementioned resolutions. The Iraq War was an enforcement of international law, not a violation of international law.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home