Illegal – Immoral – Irresponsible
Why did they attack Iraq?
Was it because of Resolution 1441?
Among other things, Resolution 1441 stated:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter. [Res1441]
Since 13 did not state what those consequences would be, it was up to the U.N. together to decide what they were, not individual countries.
When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorisation for war. According to Mexico's Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, force could only be valid, "with the prior, explicit authorisation of the Security Council." [Primer]
As the U.N. Security Council could not even agree on a second resolution, it was clear that the US and UK could not claim to be going to war to uphold the U.N. or Resolution 1441.
The statement "Decides to remain seized of the matter" was important.
Lowe pointed out that Resolution 1441 left the Security Council "seized of the matter" - diplomatic-speak for "asserting that it holds the reins over this activity." Unless the Security Council explicitly authorised a policy of "regime change", the Security Council would still remain nominally in charge of setting the limits of what the use of force was directed toward. The use of force might legally be limited to the disarmament of Iraq. [CrimeofWar]
It was not because of Resolution 1441
Was it to uphold the resolutions of the U.N.?
...In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 88 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated.
[These 88 do] not include resolutions that merely condemn a particular action, only those that specifically proscribe a particular ongoing activity or future activity and/or call upon a particular government to implement a particular action. [OutstandRes]
These countries include Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Sudan, India, Pakistan and Israel, many of which have strong links with the U.S.
It was not to uphold the Resolutions of the U.N.
Was it to get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
We don't know for sure – that's why the U.N. inspectors are in Iraq. As of the end of 2002, the inspectors have not indicated they have found evidence of any viable weapons programs. When the earlier inspection team, UNSCOM, left Iraq on the eve of Washington's December 1998 Desert Fox bombing, they said they had found and destroyed or rendered harmless 90-95% of Iraq's WMD programs....There is certainly no active nuclear program – that would be easily detectable by satellite and other technologies. While it is possible that some chemical or biological material from earlier weapons programs may remain in Iraq, as yet undetected by U.N. inspectors, there is no indication that a viable delivery system for such weapons exists.
The Bush administration claims Iraq does have WMDs – but they have refused to reveal the evidence they claim to have to the public and won't even provide all the evidence to the U.N. inspection teams. This contradicts Washington's claim of an imminent threat from Iraqi WMDs – were there such a threat, U.S. officials would surely immediately provide the inspectors all the information needed to neutralise the threat.
The U.S. willingness to talk to nuclear-armed North Korea, while refusing to talk to Iraq, provides another clear indication that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. [Primer]
Accusations of Iraqi possession of ballistic missiles are similarly outdated: According to a 1998 report by the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), 817 of Iraq's 819 Soviet-built ballistic missiles have been accounted for and destroyed. Iraq may possess up to a couple of dozen home-made versions, but none of these have been tested and it is questionable whether they have any functional launchers. [BushFails]
If it really was just getting rid of WMD, you would expect that the US/UK would focus initially on those countries which are known to have them, not suspected, and therefore are a greater threat; for example, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan. It is also rank hypocrisy to complain about other countries having WMD when the US and UK both retain their own stock – in the case of the UK, for no military or strategic reason.
The inability of the US occupation forces to find any WMD over two months since the 'end' of the war further confirms the argument.
It was not to get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Was it for self-defence?
Iraq's military is much smaller and weaker than before the 1991 Gulf War; the Pentagon estimates it is only about one-third its earlier size. It lacks the missile capacity to reach even most of its neighbours, let alone the United States...In the State Department's 2001 edition of its annual Report on Global Terrorism, the U.S. acknowledged that Iraq "has not attempted an anti-Western attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." [Primer]
The U.N. Charter does not support a claim of self-defence either:
According to the United Nations Charter, no nation has the right to attack another. The only exceptions are 1) if the Security Council specifically authorises a military strike, or 2) in self-defence. "Self-defence" is defined very narrowly. Article 51 of the Charter says a country has the right of self-defence only "if an armed attack occurs". Iraq has not attacked the U.S., so self-defence does not apply. The U.S. claims it has the right of "pre-emptive self-defence" to go to war against Iraq, without any further authorisation from the United Nations. But the U.N. Charter does not authorise such a claim. Some scholars believe that stopping an imminent attack would also give a country the right to use military force in a kind of self-defence. But even that argument fails, because no one, even the Bush super-hawks, claims that an Iraqi attack of any sort, especially on the United States, is "imminent". [Primer]
The inability of the Iraqi army to prevent the USA and UK from conquering the country shows how little a threat they were.
It was not for self-defence
Was it to combat terrorism?
Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks.
In fact, Iraq has a long history of antagonism to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. According to the New York Times: "[S]hortly after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, Osama bin Laden approached Prince Sultan bin Abdelaziz al-Saud, the Saudi defence minister, with an unusual proposition....Arriving with maps and many diagrams, Mr. Bin Laden told Prince Sultan that the kingdom could avoid the indignity of allowing an army of American unbelievers to enter the kingdom to repel Iraq from Kuwait. He could lead the fight himself, he said, at the head of a group of former mujahideen that he said could number 100,000 men." Even though the offer was undoubtedly exaggerated, bin Laden's hostility toward secular Iraq is clear. There is no evidence that that has changed.
Far from making Americans more secure, there is every reason to fear that war against Iraq will place Americans in greater danger. Across the Middle East, anti-American feeling is already widespread due to U.S. financial and diplomatic backing of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and its support for corrupt and repressive regimes across the Arab world. A U.S.-led war against Iraq will further exacerbate that anger, perhaps leading more desperate individuals to turn to acts of violence against individual Americans or institutions perceived as symbols of American power or policy. [Primer]
Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and fifteen of the nineteen September 11th hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. So why is that country still an ally?
It was not to combat terrorism
Was it for humanitarian reasons?
Claiming that an attack on Iraq is for humanitarian reasons is disingenuous at the least.
The weakness of the [U.S.] administration's position is apparent in its insistence of repeating stories of Iraqi atrocities from more than ten to twenty years ago, such as its support for international terrorist groups like Abu Nidal and its use of chemical weapons. It was during this period when the United States was quietly supporting the Iraqi regime, covering up reports of its use of chemical weapons and even providing intelligence for Iraqi forces that used such weapons against Iranian troops.
Though the 1980s marked the peak of Iraq's support for terrorist groups, the U.S. government actually dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism because of its own ties to the Iraqi war effort. [BushFails]
Economic sanctions remain the main impediment to rebuilding Iraq. Before sanctions were imposed, ninety percent of Iraq's income came from oil exports. Once sanctions prohibited all oil sales, lack of access to even basic food and medicine soon reached catastrophic levels for the once largely middle-class population. Repair of the country's water, electrical, and oil systems, and other infrastructure, devastated in the 1991 bombing campaign, stalled.
U.S. officials have made it plain...that sanctions will not end while Saddam Hussein remains in power. [Primer]
Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly an evil dictator and Iraq would have been better off without him. But there are many other similar regimes around the world. Zimbabwe, North Korea, China, Burma... In some of these places, the repression is far worse than happened under Saddam. But the U.S. and U.K. have not threatened to attack any of these countries to help those suffering within. After the Tiananmen Square massacre, there was no invasion of China by the U.S. When thousands were dying in Rwanda, there was no call for war. 'Humanity' was less important then.
It was not for humanitarian reasons
Was it for oil?
U.S. threats to go to war against Iraq are largely driven by oil and empire – expanding U.S. military and economic power. As these goals primarily benefit oil companies and the already rich and powerful, the Bush administration relies on fear to mobilise public support for war among ordinary Americans by linking Iraq falsely with the very real threat of terrorism and through rhetoric like "axis of evil".
Many top officials of the Bush administration come directly out of the oil industry. President Bush himself, as well as Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and others all have strong ties to oil companies.
But the U.S. isn't threatening an invasion simply to ensure its continued access to Iraqi oil. Rather, it is a much broader U.S. play for control of the oil industry and the ability to set the price of oil on the world market.
Iraq's oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. And with U.S.-backed Saudi Arabia increasingly unstable, the question of which oil companies – French, Russian, or American – would control Iraq's rich but unexplored oil fields once sanctions are lifted has moved to the top of Washington's agenda. Many in the Bush administration believe that in the long term, a post-war, U.S.-dependent Iraq would supplant Saudi control of oil prices and marginalise the influence of the Saudi-led OPEC oil cartel. Iraq could replace Saudi Arabia, at least partially, at the centre of U.S. oil and military strategy in the region, and the U.S. would remain able to act as guarantor of oil for Japan, Germany, and other allies in Europe and around the world. [Primer]
Do you really think that the U.S. would have cared a jot about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait if the latter country was not sitting on so much oil? They showed little concern over the war with Iran. The Gulf War was the first of the global, modern day oil wars. This is the second.
It was for oil
References
President Bush Fails to make his Case by Stephen Zunes (Texans United Against War)
Would War be Lawful without another U.N. Resolution (Crimes of War website)
United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq (Institute of Policy Studies)
Understanding the US-Iraq Crisis, a Primer by Phyllis Bennis (Institute of Policy Studies)
Resolution 1441 of the United Nations
Home | Miscellany | Portfolio | Midshipman | Oil Crisis | Genealogy
