Saddam Hussein believed that he could avoid war by bribing the French:
Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions – which stopped him acquiring weapons – were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.
To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China – three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.
Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the “primary motive for French co-operation” was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.
Iraqi intelligence officials then “targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac,” it said, including two of his “counsellors” and spokesman for his re-election campaign.
They even assessed the chances for “supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election.” Chirac is not mentioned by name.
A memo sent to Saddam dated in May last year from his intelligence corps said they met with a “French parliamentarian” who “assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq.”
What’s interesting is while everyone is trumpeting the fact that Charles Duelfer’s report said that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs at the time of the invasion, what he did find is damning.
- Iraq was preparing to restart WMD production once the sanctions were lifted.
- Iraq was using Oil For Food money to bribe foreign governments into lifting the sanctions.
- The sanctions regime was not constraining Saddam Hussein’s base of power in Iraq and the sanctions would have collapsed long before Saddam did.
- The Hussein government was not in compliance with UN resolutions and in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
So, where does all this leave the case for war in Iraq.
The sanctions regime was crumbling, and Saddam Hussein was using his blood money from the massive corruption in the UN’s Oil-For-Food program to fund a campaign to wipe them away. Once he did so, he would have immediately restarted his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. Saddam’s former nuclear weapons scientist Dr. Mohammad Obeidi has indictaed as such himself in his new book. As the President stated in his State of the Union address, it is no longer sufficient to merely assume that someone like Saddam Hussein is telling the truth. Unless Hussein could have produced documentary evidence of the destruction of his WMD stockpiles (which were believed to exist by the UN based on the evidence collected by inspectors prior to their being kicked out of Iraq in 1998), the logical assumption in such a case is to assume that Hussein was hiding something and to take the appropriate action. The counterargument states that the world should take a madman like Saddam Hussein at his word – such an assumption is deeply irresponsible.
Given what we do know of what was going in with the “containment” of Saddam Hussein it is clear that even though no concrete evidence of Iraqi WMDs being made post-Gulf War has been located, the argument that Saddam Hussein was innocent and should not have been removed does not fly. We know that Saddam Hussein was preparing to restart his WMD programs. We know that he was stealing humanitarian aid with the help of the corrupt UN. We know that he was using that money to lobby for the release of sanctions. We know that Hussein had illegal missile programs. We know that Hussein had supported terrorism, and was aware of the presence of Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi in Iraq and stayed the arrest of some of his supporters before the war. We know that Hussein was buying weapons despite the UN sanctions.
In short, Duelfer’s report indicates that our intelligence on WMDs was wrong but the case for removing Saddam Hussein remains valid. If anything, the Oil for Food scandal shows just how corrupt the UN has become and why the decision not to wait for Security Council approval for military action was the correct choice. However, the media is predictably trumpeting the WMD findings while ignoring the rest – which only goes to show why those who get their news only from sources like CNN are simply not getting the whole story.
May I suggest a reason why the media are focussing on the non-existence of WMD. Only through suggesting that Saddam DID possess those weapons was GWB able to get this whole war thingy going. Only by claiming that Saddam was able to deploy missiles to London within 45 minutes was Tony Blair able to convince Parliament to support this war. Only by sustaining the feeling of immediate threat by Saddam was this entire war possible.
Let me express my doubts here that the American public would have supported war on the basis that Saddam might someday be trying to disobey some obscure UN obligations.
What the reports proves is that Saddam is pretty much an a**hole, somebody you just don’t like (“you” being here the generic “you” which includes you and me). Yes, he did use chemical weapons. Yes, he does deserve to be put on trial for that, and yes, if you believe in Capital Punishment (which I don’t) you might argue that he deserves that, too. But no, the war would not have happened had there not been this vast amount of (deliberate?) misinformation.
You know, there are those who think that if you are so keen on going to war, you should at least be honest about your reasons for doing so.
You’re right to a point, although I think there was more going on than that. Both Bush and Blair didn’t know if Saddam had WMDs or not. The CIA and MI6 had a lot of information, some of which said yes, some of which said no. Nobody credible was saying that he didn’t have WMD, it was agreed that he did by every intelligence service on Earth. (Hell, even the *Iraqis* thought they had WMD based on what we know from the march to Baghdad. Iraqi troops had chemical warfare suits and atropine with them before they decided to run like hell.)
At that point, what do you do? The UN said that there’s 12,000 liters of anthrax in Iraq and they don’t know where it is or if it’s been destroyed. Saddam Hussein isn’t coming clean on his WMD stocks. He isn’t cooperating with the inspectors. Washington and New York and Florida have all been attacked with antrax and we have no idea where it came from. All it takes is one small amount of smallpox, and say goodbye to up to 30 million people.
The thing is that as a leader you have the *obligation* to assume the worst. You can’t just assume Saddam isn’t a threat unless you know beyond any doubt that he isn’t. And given what we know now, he would not have stayed in his box for long. Plus, he’s a state sponsor of terrorism and he’s a horrible tyrant.
Are you right that if we know what we know now war probably wouldn’t have happend? Well, yes, you are. Does that mean the war was wrong? Nope. It means that the case that was made was flawed, but the rhetoric that Bush or Blair “lied” doesn’t hold much water when everyone else said the same thing.
In the end, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Had he been left in power, a lot more people would have died and eventually he *would* have WMDs – or worse he’d get a nuke and end up starting World War III with Iran. At the end of the day, the sacrifices made in getting rid of him were worth it for a lot of other reasons than WMDs.
Besides, it’s all academic now. The real question is what we’re going to do to get Iraq moving in the right direction, and that’s where the focus should be.
Hey, Chet! Haven’t heard from you since you said you were dead-lock certain the Rathergate memos weren’t fakes!
And you thought we’d forget…
“What’s interesting is while everyone is trumpeting the fact that Charles Duelfer’s report said that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs at the time of the invasion, what he did find is damning.”
As Janek rightly pointed out, it rea
Iraq was preparing to restart WMD production once the sanctions were lifted.
Iraq was using Oil For Food money to bribe foreign governments into lifting the sanctions.
The sanctions regime was not constraining Saddam Hussein’s base of power in Iraq and the sanctions would have collapsed long before Saddam did.
The Hussein government was not in compliance with UN resolutions and in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
sorry for the non-finished post above. Wrong button.
“What’s interesting is while everyone is trumpeting the fact that Charles Duelfer’s report said that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs at the time of the invasion, what he did find is damning.”
As Janek pointed out, it is CRUCIAL to know that the reason that was invoked by all (Bush in the SoU, Colin at the UN, Rumsfled and cheney all the time) is now proven untrue! This seems to be unrelevant to Jay, now that the goalposts have been changed by Bush and Blair (now the point is that is was good to remove saddam, which nobody ever opposed. Was is worth putting the ME on fire is another question that American troops will have to answer with their lives for the next 50 years).
“Iraq was preparing to restart WMD production once the sanctions were lifted.”
=>the report said 45 min, not 5 years and 45 min!
“Iraq was using Oil For Food money to bribe foreign governments into lifting the sanctions.
+
The sanctions regime was not constraining Saddam Hussein’s base of power in Iraq and the sanctions would have collapsed long before Saddam did.”
Get your facts straights Jay: either Saddam was benefiting from it OR he wanted to remove them, but not both!
“The Hussein government was not in compliance with UN resolutions and in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.”
In your dreams maybe, but reality says that independant inspectors of the UN were investigating the case, and their conclusions at the time were that Irak was WMDs clear. They have been proven to be right. If you want, I know another country who violated the Un charter and the Geneva convention. You want a clue or you already know?
“At the end of the day, the sacrifices made in getting rid of him were worth it for a lot of other reasons than WMDs.”
Thank you for FINALLY admitting it (well, Wolfowitz already did, but it’s good to know you’re following the story): the WMD issue was a fake! The world did not buy it, and now you’ve got 130 000 soldiers sticked in a country with no potential international relieve coming up (you cannot ignore people, do what you want, fuck around, and then ask for help without makinf BIG EXCUSES). Deal with it alone, or admit your mistakes and open Irak to other companies as Halliburton(It’s sad, but if you think about cash, you’re reading the mind of every country’s leader in this world).
adult galleries