Ad infinitum and tirelessly, I have argued in favour of removing the brutal and tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein because I believe in the premise that our values are only of any worth if applied universally and those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
Of course, there were legitimate reasons against the invasion which is why I never claimed moral superiority in regard to anyone else’s opinion.
But is a reasonable and open-minded debate too much asked for? Apparently, it is.
People no longer listen. They have, on both sides of the argument, made up their minds. Now, there only exist right or wrong, black or white; no maybes and no shades of grey.
This is why I have decided to no longer discuss the issue and merely provide an ‘Iraq Fact Sheet’. Judge for yourself!
IRAQ FACT SHEET
Saddam’s casualties
- Iran-Iraq war 1980-8: 600.000 – 1.1 million
- Anfal campaign against Kurds in 1988: 100.000
- Invasion of Kuwait in 1991: 75.000
- Reprisal against Shia minority in 1991: 50.000
- Others: at least 100.000
War casualties
- Iraq Body Watch and Brooking Institution only reliable sources: estimated death toll 100.000 – 112.000
- Of the 100.000 – 112.000, 70.000 were killed by terrorists not coalition forces (especially Al Qaida and Iranian militia)
- Lancet report was invalid, 600.000 included people dying from illness
Legality:
Resolution 678
Authorised Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its Resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area
–>Resolution 678 was never revoked and authorisation to use force remained in being throughout the years (legal basis for actions in 1993 and 1998)
–> The legal advisor to the UN, Dr. Carl – August – Fleischhauer, confirmed that the original authority to use force in Resolution 678 could revive, given that the Security Council is in agreement that there is a violation of the ceasefire. This consideration was reflected in the drafting of UNSCR 1441
–>Resolution 1441, unanimously accepted, was hence only a legal refreshment for Resolution 678
–>Resolution 1441 was drafted in such a way that it was sufficient, in combination with previous UNSC Resolutions, namely 660, 678, 687 and 1137, to lawfully take part in invasion
- 2nd Resolution would have provided political legitimacy but ultimately dependent on power politics of Russia and France
- In 2003, Saddam was in breach of 17 Resolutions
- No legal consistency in international law (no UNSC Resolution for Kosovo; highly unlikely for Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Rwanda)
- Action was authorised by British parliament with 412 votes in favour to 149 opposed
Iraq Survey Group
- David Kay reported in 2003 that, although no WMDs were found, there were large numbers of unaccountable weapons missing and Saddam was greater threat than coalition thought
- Charles Duelfer reported in 2004 that from the mid-1990s onwards, Saddam made tactical decision to stop WMD programme but kept required scientists and technicians
- With sanctions crumbling (between 1999-2000, Iraqi forces had fired over 700 times into no-fly zone) in 2001/2002, Saddam would have had intent, know-how and money (oil prices were rising from over $30 a barrel in 2003 to almost $140 five years later) to prelaunch his WMD programme
Blix Report
From January 2003
On Chemical Weapons:
- Iraq said it only produced pilot scale of CWs but UNMOVIC disputed account, saying country was in possession of large scale, weaponised material
- Between 1983-8 Iraq used 13.000 chemical bombs, Iraq claims 19.500 were consumed which means a discrepancy of 6.500 unaccounted chemical bombs
- UN inspectors found 122 mm chemical rockets in a new bunker close to Baghdad
On Biological Weapons:
- Strong evidence Iraq produced more anthrax than declared, no evidence of destruction of the material
- Iraq failed to declare 650 kg of bacterial growth media in 1999
- Iraq allowed inspectors access to only 400 people, although UNSCOM knew of 3.500 people involved in weapons programme
–>Blix was clear up to the point of conflict that Saddam was in breach of Resolution 1441; no ‘immediate, unconditional and unrestricted’ access
45 minutes
- Not central to war argument
- TB used it only once but not in his key address to parliament
- In 40.000 written parliamentary questions between September 2002 and May 2003 only two mentioned 45 minutes
- In about 5000 oral questions, 45 minutes were not mentioned at all
Additional points
- When Saddam came to power in 1979, Iraq was richer than Portugal
- In 2003, 60 per cent of Iraqi population dependent on foreign food aid (sanctions were not responsible for food shortage, Saddam was allowed to buy as much food and medicine as he liked)
- Child mortality rate was equal to Congo (130 per 1000) under the age of five, made 90.000 per anno
- With exception of North Korea, no other regime in recent decades matched Saddam’s record for inhumanity
- Iraq used CW approximately 195 times between 1983-88
- GDP today is three times that of 2003
- Elections have taken place twice, in 2005 and 2010, international and domestic monitoring groups described them as free and fair, turn-out was extremely high (up to 75 per cent)
- In 2008, Iraqi parliament already passed legislation to bring Sunni Arabs back into the political process
- Former members of the Ba’athist party were permitted to retake their jobs
- The largest Sunni bloc returned to government and six Sunni ministers joined al-Maliki’s cabinet.
- Saddam was not involved in September 11th but intelligence established Al Zarqawi was active in Iraq since 2002
- War was not sealed in blood at Crawford in 2002 (Meyer was not at the meeting)
- 13 EU countries out of 25 supported the invasion (and very few were actually really opposed)
- If America knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, why not choosing another casus belli?
- Iraq was not about oil, it would have been very easy for the US to make an agreement with Saddam
- False choice between peace and war, there never was peace under Saddam
- If US/UK had not confronted him in 2003 they would have had to at a later point (Arab Spring?)
- Saddam had choice, Libya voluntarily gave up its WMD programme and US and allies reached out to regime
——————————————————————————————
Thanks to John Rentoul for the mention.
Excellent post.
Thank you, Peter. Much appreciated.
But you are not doing what you claim to be doing, Julie.
You +claim+ that you won’t argue the issue, you’ll just present the +facts+.
But your ‘facts’ are all selected to make an +argument+ (that attacking Iraq was justified).
So what you are really saying is this: ‘my argument is in support of the US-UK invasion, but I’m completely fed up with debating that with others; so I’m going to re-label my argument as ‘facts’; then that ought to shut the opposition up because ‘facts’ can’t be debated (because facts are beyond debate, by definition).’
Your problem, though, is that ‘facts’ +can+ be debated, particularly when they’re all wrong.
But I won’t (for now) bore you with a breakdown of how/why your ‘facts’ are all wrong – out of consideration for you and your exasperation with people who disagree with you (about Iraq).
Excellent post, Jewels!
Thanks, darling. x
“- Saddam had choice, Libya voluntarily gave up its WMD programme and US and allies reached out to regime”
How could Saddam have +chosen+ to give up his WMD if he didn’t have any?
(BTW, ‘WMD +programme+’ is a red herring: if you allege that someone has the thought in their head that they would like to possess WMD, then that means they have a programme, which merely happens to be at the very early planning stage. So then that gives you carte blanche for attacking anyone you like – I could attack my neighbour by alleging that he was intending to kill me.)
“…it would have been very easy for the US to make an agreement with Saddam…”
You mean like the agreement they had with him prior to Kuwait invasion? Like the agreement currently have with Saudi, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and UAE? Like the agreement they had with Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Fuentes, Mubarak, Mubutu, Branco and the Shah?
Some more facts:
“Iraq was not about oil” – http://www.federalunion.org.uk/iraq-was-not-invaded-because-of-the-oil/
“Iraq had WMDs” – http://www.federalunion.org.uk/a-thought-experiment-on-iraq/
You’re playing the same (transparent) game as Julie, Richard Laming.
Your links simply present +arguments+ attempting to justify the attack on Iraq.
FACT: all your arguments are deeply flawed.
@Rippon: if you think I am justifying the attack on Iraq, you cannot have understood my arguments. Read them again.
@Richard
Mmm, okay, maybe you’re not attempting to justify the attack on Iraq (sensible choice, because it’s certainly not justifiable).
You say ‘I cannot have understood your +arguments+.’
Accepting that (for the sake of argument), then at least we are agreed on this much: as you yourself concede, you are advancing +arguments+, just as Julie is; you are +not+ simply presenting unassailable ‘facts’ (as you initially pretended).
@Rippon: any selection of facts, given that it will necessarily be partial and incomplete, is in fact an argument. Possibly that was the point I was making.
@Julie:
“any selection of facts, given that it will necessarily be partial and incomplete, is in fact an argument.” (Richard Laming)
Your argument (which you call ‘facts’), Julie, is completely wrong (but you’re fed up with Iraq debate, so I won’t engage in it with you for now).
Excellent stuff.
I think that you might also mention
(a) the Saddam regime’s corruption of the UN together with parts of the international community;
(b) the Saddam regime’s corruption of Iraqi society (for some poignant and revealing evidence in relation to sport, see Simon Freeman, Bagdad FC (2005)); and
(c) the facts about exactly which countries supplied the regime with arms.
A little late to the party but I would like to see more of Rippon and Richard Laming
I stumbled upon this, I’ve discovered It absolutely helpful and it has aided me out loads. THANKS!
Pingback: Europs
Pingback: Iraq war – Back to the Legality Argument « Tony Blair