WMDs: Don't Change the Ground Rules
June 4, 2003
Remember: The United
States did not have the burden of proving Saddam Hussein was still
manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction to justify
attacking Iraq. There is no reason the ground rules should suddenly
change now that the war is over.
We don't have the burden
of finding WMDs now -- not because hindsight vindicates our action
as a humane liberation of the Iraqi people, which it was -- but
because we never had the burden in the first place.
Don't you recall U.N.
Resolution 1441? It was not a unilateral edict of the United States
but a unanimous corporate statement of the 15-member Security
Council. It was passed Nov. 8, 2002, not at some distant point
in the past. What did that multilateral resolution provide?
It affirmed the world's
absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction. It declared that Iraq had repeatedly breached its
obligations under U.N. Resolution 687 of 1991 by failing to disclose
fully and accurately its WMD and long-range missile programs.
It stated that Iraq had repeatedly obstructed U.N. inspections
and finally terminated them altogether.
It gave Iraq a final
chance to comply with its treaty obligation to disarm, but warned
that Iraq would be considered in further material breach and face
serious consequences if it made false statements or omissions
in its required declaration as to disarmament.
What did all that mean
in English? Simply that Iraq would either show the good guys where
they were hiding the weapons or produce a comprehensive and credible
paper trail proving it had disposed of them.
But on Dec. 8, Saddam
produced a bogus 12,000-page document full of lies and disinformation.
Right then and there Saddam sealed his own fate. For though some
on the Security Council had lost their resolve -- or were never
sincere in the first place -- George Bush was dead serious that
he wasn't going to permit any further criminality from this terrorist-enabling
tyrant.
While we permitted
the post-Clinton era doves to characterize our military enforcement
of Resolution 1441 as an act of preemption, technically, it was
not -- not if we care anything about the words we put on paper
following a war.
The gist of it is that
Saddam Hussein was on probation following Gulf War I. For 12 years
he repeatedly violated his conditions of probation with virtual
impunity. Sure, he absorbed a few cruise missile volleys, but
their limited scope did more to strengthen his defiance than deter
it. He knew Clinton wasn't serious. He surely thought after 12
years of this fecklessness that George W. Bush wasn't going to
be either.
Though the U.N. ultimately
abdicated its duties as Saddam's probation officer, the United
States and the coalition did not. We took it upon ourselves to
revoke his probation. Not because we had definitive proof that
he still had WMDs -- though we sincerely believed and still believe
he did (we've already found the two mobile weapons labs) -- but
because he failed to satisfy his conditions of probation showing
us the banned goods or proof he had disposed of them.
He had more than a
dozen chances. And sane people are supposed to believe he didn't
have the weapons when all he would have had to do to remain in
power and riches was to walk us through the process whereby he
destroyed them?
The only way Saddam
didn't still have the weapons, which we know he earlier had and
used to slaughter his own people, is if he destroyed them. So
what Bush's perennial war detractors are necessarily saying is
that he made the great sacrifice (in his mind) and went to all
the trouble of disposing of the WMDs, yet refused to benefit from
it? That would be like a convicted bank robber, after being promised
no jail time if he returned the stolen money, burning the cash
and losing both the loot and his liberty. Right -- it's unthinkable.
I don't expect Bush's
detractors -- whose goal is to discredit him -- to be logical
or intellectually honest. But I do expect others to analyze this
clearly. We are not required to find these weapons. We know Saddam
had them, or he wouldn't have repeatedly obstructed the inspectors,
filed a flagrantly false declaration or permitted himself to be
ousted from power. He gambled against the wrong guy. And that
guy, President Bush, did the right thing, and the Iraqi people
are better off, and America is a safer place because of it.
|