The trouble with 1441
I had what must be my 100th, at least, discussion today (down in the Usenet sewers) about whether or not there was adequate justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The answer is yes, of course, based on the 17 or so United Nations Security Council resolutions that explicitly set forth the obligations of Saddam Hussein and his regime in the aftermath of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The last of these resolutions was 1441, passed in 2002. The trouble with 1441 is that almost no one, including the representatives of countries on the Security Council who voted for it, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, seems to have read it. Well, here it is. Pay particular attention to this little item of interest in the fourth proviso of 1441's preamble:
In the circumlocutions of UN Security Council jargon "all necessary means" indicates military action. The case against the rogue regime in Iraq was the most thoroughly adjudicated matter of its kind since the inception of the UN. All of it enforceable under resolution 678, which was restated and reinitialized right there at the beginning of 1441. That was not happenstance.
Neither was Security Council resolution 1483, passed after the fall of Baghdad, which implicitly approved the regime change and explicitly authorized the occupation, which formally ended when sovereignty was restored to Iraq last June.
Almost everything else said about these matters is trash talk, spoken out of ignorance or disdain for the truth.
I would be remiss if I did not note that most of said trash talk emanates from those who most sternly demanded that the U.S. proceed against Iraq through the UN. Apparently, "going through the UN" means that you are never supposed to reach the end of the process.
The last of these resolutions was 1441, passed in 2002. The trouble with 1441 is that almost no one, including the representatives of countries on the Security Council who voted for it, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, seems to have read it. Well, here it is. Pay particular attention to this little item of interest in the fourth proviso of 1441's preamble:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) 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 to restore international peace and security in the area,
In the circumlocutions of UN Security Council jargon "all necessary means" indicates military action. The case against the rogue regime in Iraq was the most thoroughly adjudicated matter of its kind since the inception of the UN. All of it enforceable under resolution 678, which was restated and reinitialized right there at the beginning of 1441. That was not happenstance.
Neither was Security Council resolution 1483, passed after the fall of Baghdad, which implicitly approved the regime change and explicitly authorized the occupation, which formally ended when sovereignty was restored to Iraq last June.
Almost everything else said about these matters is trash talk, spoken out of ignorance or disdain for the truth.
I would be remiss if I did not note that most of said trash talk emanates from those who most sternly demanded that the U.S. proceed against Iraq through the UN. Apparently, "going through the UN" means that you are never supposed to reach the end of the process.
Comments