How did we start a war against Iraq? While all the pieces of the story have been out there, no one seems to have put them together in a concise manner. Even the presidential election didn't bring it out. You'd think John Kerry would have done this, but his campaign was so mismanaged that he got caught up in the drumbeat and wouldn't tell the whole story. It's time to set the record straight.
On
September 12, 2002 President Bush appeared before the United Nations to make his case against Iraq. In his
address he made many references to Iraq's actions in the 1990s. However, the important part of his address is the following:
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
On September 16, 2002 Iraq said it would let the U.N. inspectors back in. (See CNN)
On October 7, 2002 Bush took his case to the people. At a speech given in Cincinnati, after making claims that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, Bush said:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. . . After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. American wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. . . And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions. . . I hope this will not require military action, but it may. . . I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: That his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. [Emphasis added.]
It must be remember that, during this time, Congress was getting information from the Bush administration that was cherry-picked, just like the American people were. For a timeline, see Making a Case for Invasion.
On October 16, 2002, based on the information they received, and based on Bush's statements that the authorization for the use of force was only a hammer to be held over Saddam's head to get the inspectors back in, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243, passed October 16, 2002). The Authorization is in 2 parts: "Support for United States Diplomatic Efforts" and "Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces." The section on support of diplomatic efforts sets the stage. It supports the President's efforts to:
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The section authorizing the use of the U.S. armed forces is even more poignant:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to - (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nationals Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. [Emphasis added.]
It appears clear to me that the strategy was for Congress to authorize military force to scare the bejesus out of Hussein so that he would let the inspectors back in. Of course, it was ignored that on September 16th Saddam agreed to this. But the plan may be viewed as having worked beautifully. On November 8, 2002 the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, wherein it reaffirms
the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States. . . Requests the Secretary-General immediately notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC [United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].
On November 27, 2002 U.N. inspectors once again were in Iraq. On December 7, 2002, responding to the requirement in paragraph 3 of U.N. Resolution 1441, Iraq submitted a declaration to UNMOVIC and IAEA that is more than 12,000 pages. On February 28, 2003, the first report from the inspectors was issued. It says, in part:
Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival. . . Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.
On March 7 2002 Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, the IAEA Director General, gave the U.N. Security Council an up-date. He reported that they had conducted a total of "218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites, including 21 that had not been inspected before." He said:
There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question. Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.
On March 18, 2002, at the order of the U.N. Security Council, the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq and, on March 19, 2002 the United States invaded.
So, let's set the record straight. Yes, many congressional members voted "for war." But the intent appears to be to give the president leverage to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions. It worked. It worked beautifully. So I wouldn't jump on the people who voted for the Authorization for War too much. Yes, many distrusted Bush enough that they wouldn't give him any authorization and I applaud them for their insight. However, given the information they had on the potential threat posed by Iraq, I can see how some felt justified in taking this measure. From that point forward, however, the invasion of Iraq can be blamed on no one but Bush. Everything he said he wanted, he got. But, he invaded anyway. The lies, deception, and invasion of a sovereign nation is his responsibility alone, not those who attempted to give him the means to keep the peace. What they, as individuals, have done since is another matter. It appears very clear to me that shirking their responsibility to investigate these matters is the real sin of Congress, and if they won't do their jobs, we should get someone who will.