It's hitting the fan: Miltary judge agrees: Iraq war is illegal

[Huckleman2000]

By the definition given here... two things are required for a war to be UN legal

a) It be in self-defense.
b) It be approved by the UN Security council.
....
Of course, now we need to get into what is 'self-defense'; attacks on a state's citizens or an attack on the sovereign soil.

It's the OR condition, not the AND.

And yes, 'self-defense' is, in practice, defined fluidly; that's what diplomacy is for. Still, going through the motions of making a case for these conditions has been a big part of any leading up to action, and the ineptness, cynicism, disregard and deception that the Bush administration has shown in making their case for war in Iraq (particularly) has severely crippled our diplomatic credibility.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's the OR condition, not the AND.

And yes, 'self-defense' is, in practice, defined fluidly; that's what diplomacy is for. Still, going through the motions of making a case for these conditions has been a big part of any leading up to action, and the ineptness, cynicism, disregard and deception that the Bush administration has shown in making their case for war in Iraq (particularly) has severely crippled our diplomatic credibility.

You know, I've wondered about this, and I'm genuinely curious. I am not phrasing a snide political statement as a question; I am genuinely baffled.

Given that we can't find any evidence of WMD in Iraq, and given that it seems increasingly likely that Hussein didn't have any, why do you think he decided not to let in inspectors and/or to harass, delay, and obfuscate the inspectors?

I mean, surely, as the US was preparing to invade, it must have occurred to him to say "Blow this for a game of soliders, enough bluffing is enough. I'll throw open the sites while my presidential palace is still my own."

What do you think motivated him?

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

What do you think motivated him?

Shanglan

A few final straws of prestige and hubris.

 

[minsue]

You know, I've wondered about this, and I'm genuinely curious. I am not phrasing a snide political statement as a question; I am genuinely baffled.

Given that we can't find any evidence of WMD in Iraq, and given that it seems increasingly likely that Hussein didn't have any, why do you think he decided not to let in inspectors and/or to harass, delay, and obfuscate the inspectors?

I mean, surely, as the US was preparing to invade, it must have occurred to him to say "Blow this for a game of soliders, enough bluffing is enough. I'll throw open the sites while my presidential palace is still my own."

What do you think motivated him?

Shanglan

Pride.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm actually curious as how they managed to attach Afghanistan to this one.

a) The Taliban harbored Al Queada
b) Al Queada were responsible for the attacks on US soil that killed 3000 people
c) It was reasonable to believe it would not be the only attack.

I'm missing something on the 'self-defense' thing...

Iraq... fucking hardly... but Afghanistan?

Sincerely,
ElSol

Yeah, that one irks me too - that's why I said I'd really like to see the argument the government put forward that prompted such a dismissive response from the judge.

This reality of a stateless militant organization is something that doesn't seem to have precedent. No Afghani's attacked us on 9/11 - they were mostly Saudi's. But the Taliban was harboring the organization, and hesitation to strike on Afghani soil prevented the previous administration from killing Bin Laden when it had the chance. So, obviously the 'stateless' nature of Bin Laden's group has given strategists fits over the last decade.

 

[LadyJeanne]

You know, I've wondered about this, and I'm genuinely curious. I am not phrasing a snide political statement as a question; I am genuinely baffled.

Given that we can't find any evidence of WMD in Iraq, and given that it seems increasingly likely that Hussein didn't have any, why do you think he decided not to let in inspectors and/or to harass, delay, and obfuscate the inspectors?

I mean, surely, as the US was preparing to invade, it must have occurred to him to say "Blow this for a game of soliders, enough bluffing is enough. I'll throw open the sites while my presidential palace is still my own."

What do you think motivated him?

Shanglan

Pride, hubris, sure. Also, why invite the fox in the henhouse? Why give him a guided tour of where all the hens and their eggs are? Why show him where the escape routes are? Why show him all the hiding places so he can find them later? If he sees how defenseless the chickens are, there's nothing to stop him, nothing to for him to fear. And how will the hens feel? Safe?

 

[BlackShanglan]

And how will the hens feel? Safe?

Well, presumably slightly safer than they are now ...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yeah, that one irks me too - that's why I said I'd really like to see the argument the government put forward that prompted such a dismissive response from the judge.

This reality of a stateless militant organization is something that doesn't seem to have precedent. No Afghani's attacked us on 9/11 - they were mostly Saudi's. But the Taliban was harboring the organization, and hesitation to strike on Afghani soil prevented the previous administration from killing Bin Laden when it had the chance. So, obviously the 'stateless' nature of Bin Laden's group has given strategists fits over the last decade.

I think that goes back to a major difficulty of the UN: What can one do about states whose leaders are being complete bastards, but not invading anyone? If the situation in the Sudan is anything to judge by, they still haven't made any real progress in how to deal with serious problems, including genocide, that don't involve someone crossing a national border. I think that this is a serious long-term failing of the UN, and it's the sort of thing that rallies people to the anti-UN cause. Of course, there's the counter-balance; the more power the UN has, the more it can apply to, say, one's own country - and suddenly everyone is very unhappy about that. It's a precarious balance, no doubt.

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

Well, presumably slightly safer than they are now ...

I know, I know. But seriously, the US attacked Iraq before - presumably to liberate Kuwait, or its oil fields. Iraq had no love for the US and ample reason to believe we have a strong interest in their oil. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to fear allowing inspectors in there who would see exactly how incapable they were of defending themselves, thus making a US decision to attack that much easier. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to believe we wanted control of their oil fields, and if the US knew for sure Iraq had no WMD to act as a deterrant, they'd be leaving themselves wide open for whenever the US chose to go in. Which is exactly what we did.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think that goes back to a major difficulty of the UN: What can one do about states whose leaders are being complete bastards, but not invading anyone? If the situation in the Sudan is anything to judge by, they still haven't made any real progress in how to deal with serious problems, including genocide, that don't involve someone crossing a national border. I think that this is a serious long-term failing of the UN, and it's the sort of thing that rallies people to the anti-UN cause. Of course, there's the counter-balance; the more power the UN has, the more it can apply to, say, one's own country - and suddenly everyone is very unhappy about that. It's a precarious balance, no doubt.

Shanglan

Precarious indeed. Still, at least the UN provides a forum and impetus for diplomatic solutions to these problems. If the UN does not meet the standards of the anti-UN cause, what is the alternative? Pax Americana? Isolationism? And if the sole 'superpower' doesn't pay any heed to the UN, what does that do to the diplomatic positions of lesser powers?

Just because the UN has not been effective in the case of genocide in Darfur, it does not follow that the institution is worse than none at all. Given the unilateralist history of the current administration, there's not much preventing the US from jumping into the Sudan if it wanted to, except it's self-awareness of its military limitations.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I know, I know. But seriously, the US attacked Iraq before - presumably to liberate Kuwait, or its oil fields. Iraq had no love for the US and ample reason to believe we have a strong interest in their oil. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to fear allowing inspectors in there who would see exactly how incapable they were of defending themselves, thus making a US decision to attack that much easier. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to believe we wanted control of their oil fields, and if the US knew for sure Iraq had no WMD to act as a deterrant, they'd be leaving themselves wide open for whenever the US chose to go in. Which is exactly what we did.

Hmmm. Most intriguing. I can definitely see that that would look like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Thanks, Lady Jeanne; it's starting to make more sense now.

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

Hmmm. Most intriguing. I can definitely see that that would look like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Thanks, Lady Jeanne; it's starting to make more sense now.

Shanglan

The frightening part, for me, is that it is reasonable enough to be able to see it that way.

It wouldn't be a stretch for me to believe GWB and company went in there precisely because they did believe the UN Inspectors' reports and knew Iraq didn't have WMD and couldn't fight back. Continuing to insist on more and more inspections merely gave the US more and more information about what kind of defences Iraq did have and where to find their weakest points in terms of infrastructure and command & control. Maybe those inspectors were there to confirm what the CIA and military spy sattelites were showing rather than to seek WMD they already knew wasn't there. It's entirely possible this was an imperialist action spoon fed to us a war on terror in a post 9/11 world. Isn't it?

The scary thing is the US has become an aggressor and we, as citizens, have no way of knowing the truth of why we went into Iraq. As such, I wouldn't expect any nation to let anyone in to show them where their weapons are and how well they might be able, or not able, to protect their country from invasion by a foreign power. Why would they trust the UN or the US? Do you? I'm not so sure I do anymore.

 

[elsol]

Yeah, that one irks me too - that's why I said I'd really like to see the argument the government put forward that prompted such a dismissive response from the judge.

This reality of a stateless militant organization is something that doesn't seem to have precedent. No Afghani's attacked us on 9/11 - they were mostly Saudi's. But the Taliban was harboring the organization, and hesitation to strike on Afghani soil prevented the previous administration from killing Bin Laden when it had the chance. So, obviously the 'stateless' nature of Bin Laden's group has given strategists fits over the last decade.

Consider a behavior of two cavemen in a pre-historic society with no overarching society.

CavemanA has a bigger cave and a better looking Cave-hottie than CavemanB... in the middle of the night CaveManB sneaks into CaveA and gives CavemanA a skull-tattoo with his CaveStick.

This is a 'war' per se between two individuals.

Replace NationA and NationB.

Symbolically there's no difference... so why can't an individual or a set of individuals declare war on a Nation?

It's difficult to phathom because prior to the advent of modern weapons, it was ridiculous.

I consider Al Queada to be it's own nation-state, and the Taliban to be its ally.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[JohnMorrison]

what the fuck does it matter if the UN says something is illegal...what power do they hold? oh right...the US Military...wait a second

 

[BlackShanglan]

The frightening part, for me, is that it is reasonable enough to be able to see it that way.

It wouldn't be a stretch for me to believe GWB and company went in there precisely because they did believe the UN Inspectors' reports and knew Iraq didn't have WMD and couldn't fight back. Continuing to insist on more and more inspections merely gave the US more and more information about what kind of defences Iraq did have and where to find their weakest points in terms of infrastructure and command & control. Maybe those inspectors were there to confirm what the CIA and military spy sattelites were showing rather than to seek WMD they already knew wasn't there. It's entirely possible this was an imperialist action spoon fed to us a war on terror in a post 9/11 world. Isn't it?

The scary thing is the US has become an aggressor and we, as citizens, have no way of knowing the truth of why we went into Iraq. As such, I wouldn't expect any nation to let anyone in to show them where their weapons are and how well they might be able, or not able, to protect their country from invasion by a foreign power. Why would they trust the UN or the US? Do you? I'm not so sure I do anymore.

I think it's a fair point that in a society this complex, it's impossible for most of us to have direct empirical evidence of what is really happening and why decisions have been made. That can be scary, particularly when one doesn't like the people in power.

I tend to be cautious in my approach. Yes, it's possible that it was an aggressive action of unprovoked imperial greed. But that would take quite wide-scale deception and abandonment of democratic principles. I don't think that's impossible, but it is difficult, especially given a media that won't let the president get a hummer without making it front-page news. That said, if such events had happened, they would involve neither sex nor celebrities, so perhaps any hope that the media would be of aid is misplaced. On the one hand, one likes to believe that our elected officials are human beings and not demonic monstrosities, and that therefore, for example, the belief popular in the Arab world - that President Bush and Israel engineered September 11th - is an insane conspiracy theory. However, when one doesn't trust the man in power, and when one looks to a history of events like the "dirty war" in Cambodia - quite shocking, and as good a conspiracy theory as any if it didn't happen to be true - it is very difficult to know what to believe. Trickier still when, as in this case, two goals could be pursued at once; we could be both trying to determine whether WMD exist and trying to gather data that would be of use should we feel the need to invade.

I will say this. I don't see how Bush could have made this invasion fly without, ironically, the cooperation of the Hussein regime. However nervous Americans were about terrorism, it's hard to feel threatened by someone who agrees to operate in total transparency. But you raise interesting points on what might have led him to that massive miscalculation. I still think Hussein an evil man in a way that I do not believe Bush to be, but that doesn't mean that Bush is trustworthy.

To extend a little, I'd add that I think that it's in this context that the treatment of prisoners in Guantanmo and other locations, and extremely morally objectionable practices like CIA "renditions," really must be viewed. We should be concerned not merely because what we are doing is morally wrong, but because of what it does to that vast majority of people who can't see all of the facts and who, in the end, must largely make their decisions based on credibility and who they believe. When we deliberately pervert the law and human rights in order to do what we know is wrong, we send a message to those trying to weigh our claims to honesty and good will. It's not a pretty message.

Shanglan

 

[sun_lover_61]

You know, I've wondered about this, and I'm genuinely curious. I am not phrasing a snide political statement as a question; I am genuinely baffled.

Given that we can't find any evidence of WMD in Iraq, and given that it seems increasingly likely that Hussein didn't have any, why do you think he decided not to let in inspectors and/or to harass, delay, and obfuscate the inspectors?

I mean, surely, as the US was preparing to invade, it must have occurred to him to say "Blow this for a game of soliders, enough bluffing is enough. I'll throw open the sites while my presidential palace is still my own."

What do you think motivated him?

Shanglan

Shanglan,

The search for WMD's became ever more ludicrous, especially after UNSCOM had disbanded and UN weapons inspection was under the leadership of that embarrassing Aussie diplomat, Richard Butler (a man who, by the time the war had started admitted he had been "duped" by false American intelligence).

Consider that, based on American intelligence, the UN wanted full access to Iraq's war ministry - an incredible and unprecendented incursion on a sovereign nation. Consider that his (Hussein's) own palaces were to be searched. Consider, as a dictator, how humiliating that would have been. Consider that, in the game of politics, everyone close to the action knew there were no WMD's.

Hussein's refusal was pure political hubris. But it cost him nothing, because the US and its allies had long before decided they would invade Iraq. I used to think it was a bluff that failed - but perhaps Hussein knew that war was inevitable and simply made this symbolic stand to attempt to galvanise his people against the Allies.


SL61