We have a right to be in Iraq

Tom Williams

Regarding Joseph Bell’s “Bell Curve” column April 22, titled “Not at

all hot for war in Iraq:”

As usual, our local liberal columnist claims to be confused. This

time, Bell laments the recent musings of Col. David Hackworth

(retired) and Gen. Anthony Zinni (also retired) about everything

from: whether there was a threat from Iraq, whether the United States

had the “moral authority” to attack Iraq, whether our soldiers (and

presumably the U.S. public) knows why we are there, where the weapons

of mass destruction are, where the Al Qaeda connections are, and

finally, suggesting that we go back to the old liberal stand-by for

all that ills of the nation or the world.

Go back and rejoin the most impotent and useless organization ever

devised by man or beast, the helpless and ever hapless United

Nations.

I can answer all of professor Bell’s questions by referring him to

one magnificent op-ed piece by none-other than former secretary of

state (under President Ronald Reagan), George P. Shultz. Shultz, as

you will recall, was the main architect behind Reagan’s masterful

destruction of the old Soviet Union with the brilliant ploy of

Strategic Defense Initiative.

The Wall Street Journal dedicated a half page (three full columns

top to bottom) of its editorial page to Shultz’s brilliant analysis

of why the war in Iraq is not only warranted but absolutely

essential, “An essential war” Monday March 29th, 2004.

Shultz covers every base in minute detail of why we’re there and

why we need to be successful there, but I will have to abbreviate,

condense and briefly outline the most salient points of this classic

essay for sake of time and space.

First of all Shultz identifies the traditional state system that

has effectively governed the world for the past three centuries. Each

modern country (the U.S., England, France, Germany, etc.) is a member

state. When occasionally a state gets out of line, as in the past,

for example Germany and Japan in World War II, other states banded

together and brought the wayward states back into line to become a

functional member of the world community again. And Germany and Japan

have done that since their defeat in World War II.

Recently, in the last 10 to 15 years, we have experienced a new

phenomenon known as the “failed state.” Examples are Somalia, and

Afghanistan where Islamic extremists have essentially taken over what

were once legitimate, or semi-legitimate governments (states). And

these extremists created chaos and anarchy in their wake, leaving no

legitimate, or responsible government left for the rest of the world

states to deal with directly.

Other once-legitimate states have been taken over by criminals,

warlords, and thugs such as Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il in North

Korea, who took over from his father who was installed as a Stalinist

puppet by the Soviets after the Korean War.

As Shultz explains, “they seize control of the state power and use

that state power to enhance their wealth, consolidate their rule and

develop their weaponry. As they do this, and as they violate the laws

and principles of the International system, they at the same time

claim the privileges and immunities, such as the principle of

nonintervention into internal affairs of legitimate, sovereign state.

For decades their thugs have gotten away with it and the leading

nations of the world have let them get away with it.”

Until now. Now states are doing something about these despotic

regimes and are re-establishing order in these failed or (bogus)

rogue states, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, on to the explanation of why we have an absolute, legitimate

right to be in Iraq. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the

end of the Gulf War in 1991, which ended in a cease-fire. Saddam

freely admitted that he had a multitude of weapons of mass

destruction at that time. The United Nations stipulated then that

Hussein had to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

If Hussein co-operated with United Nations inspection and produced

his weapons of mass destruction, then the cease-fire would be

transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war (that

still existed) between the international system and Iraq. But if

Saddam did not cooperate in destroying his weapons of mass

destruction (which he never did, nor did he show the required proof

of their destruction), then the original security council

authorization for the use of “all necessary force” against Iraq -- an

authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended, but

not canceled -- would be reactivated. And Hussein would face another

round of U.S. lead military action against him. Hussein agreed to

this arrangement when he signed the cease-fire in 1991.

Along the way, everybody from the United Nations officials to

President Bill Clinton stated unequivocally that Hussein still had

weapons of mass destruction and was flouting 12 United Nations

resolutions to come clean on their existence, or there verified

destruction, between 1991 and 2002.

Clinton declared in February of 1998 that Saddam would have to

comply with these resolutions or face American military action. The

U.S. Congress shortly thereafter passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a

staggering vote of 360 to 38 (a whopping 91% approval in the U.S.

house of representatives); the Senate gave its unanimous approval

shortly thereafter. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed into law on

Oct. 31, 1998. This act, among other things, supported the renewed

use of military force against Hussein with the objective of changing

the regime, according to Shultz’s editorial:

“In November 1998, the UN Security Council posed a resolution

declaring Saddam to be in “flagrant violation” of all resolutions

going back to 1991. That meant the cease-fire was terminated and the

original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was

reactivated”At that time, UN inspections in Iraq were stopped for

good by Hussein and the UN inspectors reported that as of the end of

1998, Saddam possessed major quantities of WMD’s across a wide range

of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons

and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence

services of the world at the time agreed on this.”

Those weapons still exist today and will someday be found; most

probably hidden in Iraq, Syria or Iran. I will bet Bell my Social

Security retirement account on that.

Finally, in late 2002, the U.S. obtained United Nations Security

Council resolution No. 1441 giving Hussein one final chance to

produce his known weapons of mass destruction. When he refused,

President Bush ordered U.S. forces into action under United Nations

security council resolutions Nos. 678 and 687, which were the

original bases for military action against Hussein in 1991. These

resolutions were still active and applicable per the terms of the

cease-fire that had now been flagrantly ignored by Hussein and we,

along with troops from other nations, invaded Iraq and disposed

Hussein once and for all in the spring of 2003.

Hussein is now resting comfortably at an undisclosed location

awaiting a trial for mass-murder, genocide, among other charges, by

his Iraqi peers. Good riddance to this murdering monster. Thank you

Bush and all of our brave troops and the troops of our courageous

allies.

What about the foregoing don’t you understand, professor Bell? It

seems pretty clear for everyone to plainly see except you and a

couple of paid tour-speakers.

* TOM WILLIAMS is a Newport Beach resident.