The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] FW: Wash Post Editors, Iraq Failing Already

Hi, all.  Iraq may be deemed a producer of weapons of mass destruction
because the inspectors could not find any.  This article is disseminated
in the "Iraq News" sent out regularly by Laurie Mylroie, who wrote
"Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America."
Best, Suzy

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Mylroie []
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:53 PM
To: Laurie Mylroie
Subject: Wash Post Editors, Iraq Failing Already

The Washington Post
Iraq's False Response
Sunday, November 17, 2002

THE PURPOSE of the U.N. Security Council's latest resolution on Iraq is
to dispatch international inspectors on a prolonged hunt for the weapons
mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has produced and hidden in defiance
international law. Rather, it is to offer Iraq a "final opportunity" to
voluntarily and fully comply with previous disarmament orders. The
distinction is crucial: It defines the difference between the United
Nations' failed effort during the 1990s to use civilian technicians to
compliance on an unwilling regime and a transformative decision by Iraq
give up its weapons and rogue-state status. Only the latter scenario is
acceptable alternative to a U.S.-led military campaign to disarm Iraq.
That's why, at American insistence, the resolution says that "failure by
Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the
implementation of
this resolution shall constitute a further material breach" justifying

By that standard, it already ought to be pretty clear that Saddam
does not intend to embrace the peaceful solution he has been offered.
statement his government submitted to the Security Council on Wednesday
grudgingly conceded that inspectors would be allowed back into the
But this nominal concession was accompanied by an outpouring of
rhetoric, topped by a blatant lie: that "Iraq neither had produced nor
in possession of any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or
biological, throughout the time of the inspectors' absence from Iraq."
assertion, contradicted by extensive evidence collected by Western
intelligence agencies and the United Nations itself, sends the message
Saddam Hussein intends to return to the same tactical game of
and deception he practiced in the past -- a game that President Bush has
said will not be tolerated again.

The signals from Baghdad should be giving U.N. Secretary General Kofi
and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix serious reason to doubt whether
inspectors' mission can go forward. Yet both Mr. Annan and Mr. Blix
ready to lapse back into the old routine of misusing the inspectors.
visiting the White House last week, Mr. Annan waved off the Iraqi
stonewalling: "We need to be patient and give the inspectors time and
to do their work," he advised. "We should not be seen as rushing the
and impatiently moving on to the next phase." In saying this, Mr. Annan
himself was trying to skip over what should be the first, and possibly
only, stage of this process: determining whether Iraq is prepared to
comply. If so, the inspectors would then need time to verify Baghdad's
disclosure of its arsenal and subsequent disarmament. But Baghdad's
communication to the council, with its blatant denial of its weapons,
the threshold test of intentions.

So far the White House's reaction to the Iraqi declarations has been
officials say they prefer to wait for the full declaration of arms,
precursor materials and related industry required of Iraq by Dec. 8.
Possibly between now and then Saddam Hussein will make the judgment that
full disclosure and cooperation is his only means of survival -- though
statements like Mr. Annan's make that outcome less likely. Most probably
Iraq will deliver another false statement to the council, while
to block the inspectors from uncovering its lies. If so, the
must be prepared to respond aggressively: It must demand that the
and U.S. allies, judge whether Saddam Hussein's words and actions meet
test of cooperation stipulated by the resolution. Months of inspections
should not be needed to clarify whether Iraq's dictator intends to
the course he has pursued for the past two decades, and thus avert war.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]