The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

Thanks, that does clear some things up.

However, this merely raises the question of whether a nation, *in the case of an existing just cause for war*, can act without the United Nations authority. That would be an interesting case, and I would likely accept war from a nation whose case for just war was ironclad, but simply lacked the political support of the UN, or who was blocked by a veto. However, since the US does not have such a cause for war, it is somewhat irrelevant whether they would be justified in declaring war if they had one.

And, of course, it is only a footnoted list of arguments people of made, and is hardly itself a refutation of my argument. Some of the cited articles might have convincing arguments against me, but then, some of them obviously support my position on this issue. I haven't read them, so perhaps a more curious poster will weigh the arguments more carefully.

The best approach would be to review the US Congress's authorization for the use of force. This is the US's justification for war. (link)

• Whereas in 1990 in ... The framework for this AOF is the prior war.<>
  
• Whereas after the liberation ... On the two conditions, open disarmament and support for terrorism, Iraq failed to comply.<>
  
• Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors ... The judgment in the absence of open disarmament by Iraq was they had something to hide. I still maintain they might have.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire... They did thwart the actions of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.<>
  
• Whereas in Public Law 105-235 ... If Iraq was actually in compliance and knew that the US felt they were in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations", then their actions were akin to suicide by cop.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat ... Again, the two conditions the US felt Iraq was breaching were pursuit of proscribed weapons and support for international terrorism. True or not, this was the US Congress's position on Iraq. I tend to feel that Iraq's WMD capabilities were overblown, and most of his programs were entrenched in hiding, but that his growing support for international terrorism was a threat.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq persists in violating... This is true.<>
  
• Whereas the current Iraqi regime... Also, true. Irrelevant if they had been proven to be disarmed.<>
  
• Whereas the current Iraqi regime... This is true.<>
  
• Whereas members of al Qaida... We've argued plenty about Zarqawi's organization, and the links between senior Iraqi's and members of Al Qaida, including directly with OBL.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor... Also, true.<>
  
• Whereas the attacks on the United States... Ok, this is pretty speculative that Iraq might be a conduit more so than say Iran, or Pakistan.<>
  
• Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability... So, in the absence of proof of disarmament, the extreme case is made. Again, I think this is a stretch of credibility to believe Saddam would give WMD's to terrorists.<>
  
• Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678... The US, feeling the 1991 cease fire having been violated, returns to its 1991 authorization to bring Iraq into compliance.<>
  
• Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force... Again, returning to the former authorization from 1991 to finish the purpose of the prior war.<>
  
• Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed... Ditto.<>
  
• Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998... The US (under Pres. Clinton) supports regime change.<>
  
• Whereas on September 12, 2002... The US has attempted to work with the UNSC.<>
  
• Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism... The US feels Iraq is in violation in its continued support of terrorism.<>
  
• Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue... Iraq continued and was actually increasing its support for international terrorism, and the post 9/11 congress was more serious in its war on nations who supported it.<>
  
• Whereas the President and Congress are determined... Meaning that Iraq belligerently continued to be a haven and provided support for terrorism and terrorist organizations. <>
  
• Whereas the President has authority... ...to deter and prevent. So essentially, don't get on the bad guy list.<>
  
• Whereas it is in the national security interests...Viewing this war as the last resort to bring about international peace and security to the Persian Gulf.<>
  [st]So, in summary; The US felt it had Just Cause for war and was threatened by Iraq, because of Iraq's position of providing haven for terrorism, it's suspected pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and its ruthless use of these weapons in the recent past. Now, I agree, other nations, like Iran were much larger supporters. I think Iraq was selected due to Saddam's pathological belligerence. Unfortunately a trait shared by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez. How much of the cause of this war would you place on Saddam's intractable ego?
  
  The two pillars here are; 1) Was Iraq a haven for terrorism, and 2) was Iraq intent on producing WMD's? To complicate matters, you need to separate what is believed now, from what was believed in 2002, within all the misinformation flying around at that time. Much of the Just Cause for the war was cloaked in suspicions of Iraq's intent and capabilities, and there was an active lobby of organizations like PUK and the INC who were more than willing to manufacture the evidence needed to justify the war. The "truth" is probably somewhere between what was overblown prewar and suspected then, and the zero that you have proposed was the reality. I believe that items 1 & 2 were true, although Iraq's WMD capabilities had been severely impacted and curtailed by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. In order to rebuild his programs, he needed to obfuscate and dodge until the UN and the world tired of the game.