During the time since Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case that Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions words like
irrefutable, convincing, overwhelming, undeniable, indisputable have filled
the airwaves of punditry describing Powell’s performance.
Powell’s performance was impressive. Without a body or even the illusive
smoking gun, Powell did indeed prove that “something” is amiss when
it comes to Iraqi compliance to UN Resolution 1441.
Unfortunately, as impressive, detailed, and persuasive Powell may have been,
his performance begs the question: What did Powell prove? For the first time
a member of the administration demonstrated with clear and concise examples
of Iraq’s overt attempts to hide those things that would put them in UN
violation. I do not believe that anyone watching Powell’s presentation
could conclude that accusations of Iraqi UN violations amount to nothing more
than a miscarriage of justice.
Powell deftly used intercepted phone conversations and satellite photographs
to demonstrate to what extent Saddam Hussein is trying to deceive UN weapon
inspectors. So much so, that it would be fascinating to be a fly on the wall
listening to Iraqi representatives answer the following: What happened to the
anthrax? What happened to the bombs? Why the need for a cover-up?
Yet, is this really groundbreaking news? How many of the UN delegates, including
France and Germany, were left in utter disbelief by Powell’s disclosures
of Iraqi impropriety. There are not many bumper stickers being sold in Iraq
or elsewhere that read: “Saddam Hussein is misunderstood!” This
begs an additional question, what did Powell fail to prove?
Powell failed to demonstrate the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. According
to President Bush at the 2002 State of the Union address the three-headed monster
known as the “axis of evil,” Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, along
with their terrorist cohorts, would be stopped.It was my understanding that
the terrorist attack of 911 gave Bush his raison d’etre. Under that light,
the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is
crucial.
If the thesis statement of the Bush presidency is about combating terrorism,
but no link can be demonstrated between Al Qaeda cells and the Iraqi government,
why must we risk lives and resources on a country that is violation of UN resolutions
but poses no immediate threat to the U.S.?
Furthermore, there are serious problems with Al Qaeda forming an alliance with
Iraq. Through the theological lens of Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein is not a “good”
Muslim. To the disciples of Osama Bin-Laden if one is not a good Muslim one
is an infidel. Such an alliance would not be prudent for Saddam Hussein, who has already demonstrated his commitment to self-preservation at all cost.
Does U.S. intelligence believe that Saddam Hussein’s hatred for America
is at the point that he would risk a coalition with someone who could eventually
turn on him?
I am not arguing that a union between Al Qaeda and Iraq is impossible, however,
it does require more analysis than what was provided by Secretary Powell. Powell’s
failure to make the case against Iraq and its links to Al Qaeda terrorist activities
continues to call into question the sensible nature of the impending military
exercise. Because Saddam Hussein is violation of UN Resolution 1441, Powell
made an extremely strong case for the UN Security Council to take military action
against Iraq, but not the United States.
Reality suggests that war is the Bush administration’s only course of
action. To decide against war at this point, with Saddam Hussein’s myriad
of UN violations public, would make the Bush administration nothing more than
a paper tiger whose rhetoric would not match its action.
Thus, the prospects for war are irrefutable, convincing, overwhelming, undeniable, and indisputable. But that still does not make them right.