Collegiate Times

Within the doctrinal system of the Middle East, blowing oneself up and killing over 40 innocents is taken for granted as noble ("Female Suicide Bomber Kills 43 in Karbala," Associated Press yesterday). The title to this piece is among the worst yet. The US fight has never been "an attack on the people of Iraq." Your column is so full of lies and wrong-headed conclusions it's scary. One million deaths? Out of what orifice, exactly, did you pull that number? It's also worth mentioning that the vast majority of indigenous deaths have come at the hands of their fellow Iraqis. Twice comparing the United States to Hitler is beyond absurd. He had two main goals. One was to expand the official borders of Germany and to build a German Reich across the whole of Europe and beyond. The second was the systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group. It's called the Holocaust – maybe you've heard of it. If you think the war in Iraq is anything like what the Nazis did, run – don't walk – to the nearest history professor so he can set you straight.

The legality of the war is not as clear cut as you make it seem, either. First of all, neither a formal instrument of surrender nor a peace treaty was ever signed at the end of Desert Storm. The cease fire document that Saddam Hussein signed required several things of him, including weapons inspections (he kicked inspectors out in 1998) and that he not attack coalition forces (his air defenses engaged American aircraft almost daily throughout the 1990s). Under the terms of the cease fire, the US could legally engage in hostilities at any time when Saddam didn't honor his end. Indeed, President Clinton directed a sustained bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998. Finally, US Security Council Resolution 1441 – passed unanimously - found Iraq in :material breach" of disarmament obligations, warning that Iraq would face "serious consequences" if it did not comply (serious consequences being diplomatic speak for military action). UNSCR 1441 noted that Iraq was in violation of UNSCRs 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284 and 1382. It further recalled that UNSCR 678 "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)." And those sanctions you deplore? Saddam could sell as much oil as he wanted for humanitarian reasons. Oil for food. Ring a bell? Instead Saddam went on a spending spree, building over 70 palaces after the Gulf War. And who imposed those sanctions? Your beloved United Nations. The "sanctions killed the little children" crap is Iraqi propaganda. Things in Iraq are bad enough and the wisdom of prosecuting the war in the first place is questionable enough without resorting to exaggeration, stupidity and propaganda. On a positive note, you'd make Michael Moore proud.

Saddam did not kick out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998. That is false. They left when Clinton said he was going to bomb. I did not read anything further on Chip's writing because he does not know what he is talking about.

Susan, I'd suggest you read some of Chip's postings on several other Iraq-related forums. I think you'll find, for some pretty obvious reasons, that Chip knows better what he is talking about than most people on this forum on account of the fact that he is actually there. The constant assertions that America is trying to establish some sort of 'new dominance' in the world, with the specific intention of (permanently) expanding our borders, is downright ludicrous - the charge of imperialism requires some proof that the US has a desire to either expand its territory or otherwise permanently subjugate another nation to the US' will. Imperialism was the driving force behind Manifest Destiny, for example, as well as Hitler's view of World War II and countless other wars. Since the US has not expressed a desire to directly govern Iraq (as evidenced by the fact that Iraq has its own political system), the assessment of our intentions as imperialist remains unproven.

The main problem with this war is the planning via Donald Rumsfeld who overrode his own Army Chief of Staff to have a "light footprint" war. We should have done this right with 400,000 troops like the first gulf war, established complete control, had less iraqi casualties, and we would have been out two years ago. I also blatantly don't trust your figures on the cost of this war and whether they are inflation adjusted against all other U.S. wars. Here's a fact: Entitlement programs (medicare, social security, welfare) will make up 70% of U.S. spending by the end of the next president's term. So don't act like you have this easy way to end the U.S.'s financial problems. I'm embarrassed for you as I read your article because its so absurd, especially when written from your high horse. Comparing U.S. to the Nazis? Are you trying to destroy your own credibility before I even get through the article. Liberals don't hate america, people who call us Nazi do.

Susan, I was in Saudi Arabia providing support of Operation Southern Watch at the time. Allow me to make a minor correction. When I said Saddam kicked the inspectors out I was speaking semantically. You are quite right in that Saddam did not technically physically kick the inspectors out but in October of that year he completely stopped cooperating with UNSCOM and blocked weapons inspectors from doing any work. A colleague of mine who was an Arabic translator for the inspectors was outside one of Saddam's palaces with the team when they almost got into a gunfight. The Iraqis ringed the team for hours as they watched hastily summoned cargo trucks drive to the palace, load God knows what onto the trucks and then drive away. They then let the inspectors leave the area. The UN withdrew its staff in November and US and UK bombers were dispatched. As soon as the Iraqis picked the planes up on radar Saddam agreed to let the inspectors back in with unfettered access. In December, Richard Butler, the Chief UN Inspector, reported that Saddam was playing games again. That is what triggered the bombing and, yes, the inspectors left of their own volition. So while Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out he completely prevented them from doing their UN-sanctioned mission.

Chip, I'm inclined to believe that the whole business, and many other incidents like it, was designed to create the impression that the Hussein regime did have WMD, plus it lent him credibility by "standing up" to the West.

Gabe, in April 1995, UNSCR 986 authorized the oil-for-food program in response to the humanitarian needs and Saddam's (apparent) cooperation. In August of that year, two of Saddam's sons-in-law defected to Jordan. One of them, Lt. General Hussein Kamel, was the head of Iraq's WMD program. Kamel started spilling his guts. Five days after he defected, Saddam invited a delegation from the IAEA to come so he could "remember" a bunch of stuff. The IAEA revealed an extensive clandestine nuclear weapons program and Saddam admitted that he had planned to use highly enriched uranium that was under UN seal for weapons. The Iraqis also turned over a half-million documents they had "discovered." I have little doubt that Saddam's WMD were gone by 2003, but whether he still had them in 1998 is a lot harder to say. What we do know is that Saddam used chemical weapons on many occasions. The UN verified the use of mustard gas and tabun against the Iranians and he also used those plus VX and others against the Kurds in a sustained campaign in 1987 / 88. I really don't think we tried to create the impression Saddam had WMD in the 1990s. Saddam actually had them or was trying to acquire them – he admitted it himself. As time went on he undoubtedly felt it vital to his survival in a very tough neighborhood to maintain the illusion that he had WMD. All it really got him was the hangman's noose.

Chip, it is nice to see someone who has BTDT setting the record straight.

I think you misunderstood me Chip, I meant that a lot of the confrontations were stage-managed by the Hussein regime to create the impression that the WMD program was either in place - post Operation: Desert Fox (I was a participant) - or in the case of the pre-ODF shenanigans - that they were of a greater extent than they actually were. I'm fully aware of the Hussein regime's use of chemical weapons during Operation: Anfal and against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. What I'm saying is that Saddam Hussein in 1998 was in a weakened state and felt the need to project strength, by creating confrontation (which serves the dual purpose of projecting strength and gaining sympathy when the poor Iraqi people are bombed), exaggerating his strengths and then pulling the whole WMD program out of the air in the wake of 9/11. I'm certainly not arguing that Hussein's regime was transparent - or even honest.

Godwin's Law maybe?

>The legality of the war is not as clear cut as you make it seem, either. First of all, neither a formal instrument of surrender nor a peace treaty was ever signed at the end of Desert Storm. The US never actually declared war against Iraq in 1990, which is required by the US constitution. >The cease fire document that Saddam Hussein signed required several things of him, including weapons inspections (he kicked inspectors out in 1998) No he didn't. Former President Clinton ordered the inspectors out in 1998 prior to operation Desert Fox. Hussein just didn't let them back in after that. >and that he not attack coalition forces (his air defenses engaged American aircraft almost daily throughout the 1990s). Coalition airforces were violating Iraqi airspace without any UN authorization. Iraq had every right to return fire. >Under the terms of the cease fire, the US could legally engage in hostilities at any time when Saddam didn’t honor his end. Looking through the text of UN resolution 687 (which as far as I can tell is the ceasefire agreement), nothing in the document supports your assertion that the US could legally engage in hostilities, especially since we never declared war against Iraq at that point in time. >Indeed, President Clinton directed a sustained bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998. Finally, US Security Council Resolution 1441 – passed unanimously - found Iraq in :material breach” of disarmament obligations, warning that Iraq would face “serious consequences” if it did not comply (serious consequences being diplomatic speak for military action). UNSCR 1441 noted that Iraq was in violation of UNSCRs 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284 and 1382. It further recalled that UNSCR 678 “authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990).” And those sanctions you deplore? Saddam could sell as much oil as he wanted for humanitarian reasons. Not until *four* years after the sanctions were imposed and those sanctions prevented a lot of "dual-use" items from entering Iraq (which were needed for infrastructure, health care, etc.) >Oil for food. Ring a bell? Instead Saddam went on a spending spree, building over 70 palaces after the Gulf War. And who imposed those sanctions? Your beloved United Nations. The US and the UK were the countries that continued to veto any attempt to ease the sanctions throughout the '90s. Blood on our hands and all that. >The “sanctions killed the little children” crap is Iraqi propaganda. It's not propaganda. Only someone living in their own fantasy world would think that sanctions didn't not result in any deaths whatsoever. >Things in Iraq are bad enough and the wisdom of prosecuting the war in the first place is questionable enough without resorting to exaggeration, stupidity and propaganda. On a positive note, you’d make Michael Moore proud. The war was a waste of money, resources, lives, and all for naught.

The US never actually declared war against Iraq in 1990, which is required by the US constitution. No he didn't. Former President Clinton ordered the inspectors out in 1998 prior to operation Desert Fox. Hussein just didn't let them back in after that. Coalition airforces were violating Iraqi airspace without any UN authorization. Iraq had every right to return fire. Looking through the text of UN resolution 687 (which as far as I can tell is the ceasefire agreement), nothing in the document supports your assertion that the US could legally engage in hostilities, especially since we never declared war against Iraq at that point in time. Not until *four* years after the sanctions were imposed and those sanctions prevented a lot of "dual-use" items from entering Iraq (which were needed for infrastructure, health care, etc.) The US and the UK were the countries that continued to veto any attempt to ease the sanctions throughout the '90s. Blood on our hands and all that. It's not propaganda. Only someone living in their own fantasy world would think that sanctions didn't not result in any deaths whatsoever. The war was a waste of money, resources, lives, and all for naught.

Gabe, my bad, I did misread your comments. A thousand pardons.