Hans Blix: “A war of utter folly”
The March 20 U.K. Guardian features an Iraq war commentary by former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix that for its trenchant economy could serve as an object lesson for every contributor to this blog.
As Blix says–and he would know–there was NO rational justification for this war EXCEPT the elimination of a brutal dictator. He effortlessly strikes down all of the other bullshit rationales in a few quick strokes:
1.) Dire, smoking-gun-becomes-mushroom-cloud Iraqi WMD threat to U.S?
Nonexistent
2.) Iraqi support for Al Queda?
Non-existent prior to U.S. invasion of Iraq, which inspires and enables “Al Queda in Iraq.”
3.) Gift of democracy to Iraqi people?
Hands the country over to sectarian fascists.
4.) Secret mission to enhance the strategic position of Israel?
Hugely enhances the strategic position of Iran and Syria, elevating both to kingpin status. Places Iraqi oil in the hands of Shiite strong-men closely affiliated with Iran.
Blix goes on to explain why even if you believe–as I and other liberals like Christopher Hitchens do–that removal of a vicious tyrant like Saddam Hussein may could in theory justify the use of force anywhere in the world, nevertheless this war was an extremely bad idea for many different reasons. The most important of which is that it sets a precedent for the future indiscriminate use of “preemptive” force in international affairs:
“It is a setback in the world’s efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states. In 1945 the US helped to write into the UN charter a prohibition of the use of armed force against states. Exceptions were made only for self-defence against armed attacks and for armed force authorised by the security council. In 2003, Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody. Instead, the invasion reflects a claim made in the 2002 US national security strategy that the charter was too restrictive, and that the US was ready to use armed force to meet threats that were uncertain as to time and place - a doctrine of preventive war.”
“In the 2004 presidential election campaign, Bush ridiculed any idea that the US would need to ask for a “permission slip” before taking military action against a “growing threat”. True, the 2003 Iraq invasion is not the only case in which armed force has been used in disregard of the charter. However, from the most powerful member of the UN it is a dangerous signal. If preventive war is accepted for one, it is accepted for all.”
“One fear is that the UN rules ignored in the attack on Iraq will prove similarly insignificant in the case of Iran. But it may be that the spectacular failure of ensuring disarmament by force, and of introducing democracy by occupation, will work in favour of a greater use of diplomacy and ’soft power’.”
March 31st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Blix, Scott Ritter and many others had foresight that was ignored in favor of PNAC’s failed, stinky world vision.
Here’s some hindsight. If Al Gore had been at home, (the White House), for the last seven years, the excuse Bush has used to create folly and tragedy here and around the world, (911), would have not been carried out. The burden of proof lies with the 911 commission which proved nothing in their delayed and compromised study that was funded with a fraction of the amount used to prove Clinton had a blow job.
But at least we saved enough money there to find out if baseball stars are on steroids.