Why Iraq, and not Zimbabwe?
James Taranto, the editor of the Wall Street Journal’s online opinion pages, makes a good point in this piece. It answers those who ask why, if Saddam Hussein being an oppressive tyrant is a valid reason for intervention in Iraq, isn’t the same true for Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe. Referring to Barack Obama’s comment that preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to keep American troops in Iraq, or one would have to argue America should have troops in the Congo or Sudan for the same reason, he writes:
Mr. Obama is engaging in sophistry. By his logic, if America lacks the capacity to intervene everywhere there is ethnic killing, it has no obligation to intervene anywhere–and perhaps an obligation to intervene nowhere. His reasoning elevates consistency into the cardinal virtue, making the perfect the enemy of the good.
It might make the world a simpler place if all the world’s problems had the same solution, and all the world’s problems could be solved at the same time, but they don’t and they can’t. Real-world complexity is not a justification for sitting idly by, bemoaning that we don’t live in an ideal world.
“Saddam being an oppressive tyrant” was NOT the reason for American intervention in Iraq. We seem to willfully forget on these issues. Bush LIED to the world that there weapons of mass destruction there and has NOT bothered to apologize for the LIE even if American children continue to be sacrificed. Bush and his squad have been permanently tainted by that atrocious LIE
Firstly, Saddam Hussein being an oppressive tyrant was one of the reasons. There were many reasons, but here’s the relevant paragraph from the Congressional resolution that authorised the war:
Second, let me address the “BUSH LIED” claim. (Why doesn’t that phrase come in lower case anymore? Does shouting make the allegation more true? More serious? More convincing?)
Before the war, I complained that the Bush administration was citing too many reasons for going to war. There were many reasons, including not only WMDs, but also his repeated breach of the ceasefire conditions he signed after being pushed out of Kuwait, his non-compliance with over a dozen UN resolutions, and his willful non-cooperation with weapons inspectors.
However, I didn’t feel that dumping half a dozen reasons in the lap of the public was going to convince them of the necessity of going to war. When the Bush administration finally chose one hook to hang the war on, I was annoyed, because I thought they picked the wrong one. WMD was not the most convincing reason. It was a complex issue with a vague definition (”stockpiles” versus “programmes”, for example). Intelligence about secret weapons programmes is by nature uncertain and incomplete, and therefore vulnerable to post facto attack. The charges could easily be evaded by Hussein, simply by hiding them somewhere in the vast deserts if Iraq, destroying them before the invading forces, or moving them out of the country. I thought there were better, more solid reasons that could have been chosen as the public hook for the invasion.
I don’t know which of these he did, or whether the intelligence really was mistaken. But if it was the latter, it must be said that the UN, the US, and all the world’s intelligence agencies - including those of the countries that refused to join the invasion - were convinced Hussein had WMD programmes and ambitions. He acted guilty as sin, and “found” a whole bunch of highly illegal weapons even days before the invasion began. The signs of evidence destruction, the testimony of witnesses, and the evidence of ongoing WMD programmes that were found (critics really should read the whole Duelfer report) suggest that the belief was justified.
But even if you believe the intelligence was simply wrong, because no actual WMD stockpiles were found, this is a far cry from lying. Lying is an act of commission, not omission. It is stating something you know to be false, not stating something you don’t know is mistaken.
As the resolution linked above shows, WMD were far from the only reason why Congress authorised the use of military force. But even on WMD, the most you can say is that Bush was mistaken - like everyone else. You can’t honestly claim that he lied. If he had, he’d have been impeached a long time ago.
My thoughts about the US entry into the war run very similar to yours. One thing I would add is that after 9-11 the US citizens, legislators, executive branch, intelligence agencies and advisers on the situation were all pissing in their pants. And the people involved in the government decisions had been telling themselves and the citizens (as had foreign intelligence agencies) since the US left the Gulf the previous war that Saddam had WMD’s. This only made the situation worse. Cap it off Saddam was playing cat and mouse games where he wanted the world to think he had WMDs hoping for a negotiation edge. Talk about a recipe for disaster. As much as the US as a whole country distrusted and hated Saddam after the first gulf war, there was no way we were not going into Iraq. Fear was the motivating factor and Saddam thought by feeding to that fear he could get the UN to force the US to back off. But after 9-11 there was just too much paranoia to be playing that type of dangerous games. It was a bad gamble by Iraq.
I disagree that there was “no way” the US wasn’t going into Iraq. There was. Unlikely, but possible. I agree Hussein badly overplayed his hand. He believed (with reason) that he could convince countries like France, Russia and China to lift sanctions. They were already doing a ton of business with him, with the complicity of corrupt UN officials, and the UN is known to be reluctant to act, anytime, anywhere, for any reason. In fact, without the invasion, that’s exactly what would have happened. When the US agreed to give the UN six more months, it almost seemed he was right. But he played his brinkmanship game just a little too long. But he could have prevented the invasion at any time, had he wanted to. All he needed to do was account for the missing WMD and surrender what proscribed weapons he had. He didn’t. He brought it on himself.
Indeed. Saddam played a massive and unnecessary bluff, miscalculating badly and effectively condemning himself to death. Had he sat back, granted full and unfettered access to the inspectors and accounted for all the lost WMDs, the US’s primary rationale for war would’ve fallen apart, sanctions would probably have collapsed and he would likely still be in power. France, Germany, Russia and China tried giving him every possible opportunity to do that, but instead he chose to play his usual old game of dodge. I watched each and every Blix report to the security council, and each was full of descriptions on how Iraq was preventing the inspectors from doing their jobs in direct violation of Resolution 1441.
And the sheer irony is that all those governments sitting smugly claiming “I told you so” were actually all convinced that Saddam’s Iraq still had WMD stockpiles. Resolution 1441, drafted in part by France and China, specifically called on Iraq to give up its WMDs. In South Africa, the ANC even sent a high-level ‘disarmament team’ to provide Iraq with expertise on how to dismantle its WMD programs, the same programs the ANC now claims didn’t exist. If even those defending Saddam believed he had WMDs, is it really fair to accuse the US of lying for believing the same thing? After all, most of Saddam’s own military commanders believed that the country had deployable WMDs, with only a select few inner-circle Ba’ath party men knowing the truth. In that kind of environment, is it really any surprise that the intelligence was wrong?
have you been to zimbabwe to make that comment? i bet not, i was born an bread in london all my life but my parents were born in zimbabwe the only reason these white repoters arnt allowed to enter zimbabwe is because they over dramatise everything thats going on there before i left for zimbabwe i was scared because of the things the media was putting into my head when i went there it was the most memeroble time of my life i couldnt speak or understand my own mother language and i was as much as foreign as the none zimbabweans but they were lovley teaching me a different way of life yes the economy is hard there but who are you or anyone to say anything about my mother land when you’ve never been there or you’ve stayed for two weeks i was there for almost a year and cried when i had to leave there are many people of ethnic origin in zimbabwe who live and speak and never want to return i met an english man there who has been there for two years married a zimbabwean woman has children in england and does not ever want to return but the zimbabwean wife does so i suggest you go there for longer than a month and tell me you were beaten made prisoner an all that s**t then make your comments about zimbabwe and robert mugabe!!!! i think you have no say and your argument is pointless GOOD POINT they said theres no point, at the end of next year im leaving my family and everyone behind to live there because i prefer there way of life then in london/uk and as i said ive lived in uk all my life consider im only 18 years of age so get your facts right before you start offending my ancestors!
thanks for your time reading this anyway
Nomsa Mpofu
What comment exactly? That Zimbabwe’s problems don’t have the same solution as the problems of Iraq? I said nothing specific about Zimbabwe, other than that Robert Mugabe is an oppressive tyrant.
It makes no difference whether I’ve been there or not. There’s no disputing that Mugabe has ruled the country since long before you were born. That he has killed thousands of Matabeles, also before you were born. That he has ruled the country with an increasingly iron fits since, and has imprisoned, intimidated, assaulted and even killed political opposition. That many thousands, and probably millions, ordinary Zimbabweans have fled Mugabe’s rule. Is there any reason I should believe you, and disbelieve them? Or to call the Zimbabweans I know personally liars? Or ignore the Zimbabwean newspapers I read? Or dismiss the reports of thuggery by the Mugabe regime, or the economic news about property expropriation, price controls, wage controls and hyperinflation, all of which are direct actions by Mugabe to maintain control of the country?
You love your country. I can understand that. Many South Africans loved the country while it was ruled by Apartheid thugs. Although many fled the country, many couldn’t leave or chose to stay behind, despite the danger and oppression and fear and death they knew they risked. But that doesn’t mean the Apartheid thugs were nice people. And I don’t need to have lived in South Africa during the time of Hendrik Verwoerd to know that.
so you can give a first hand account on whats happening there??? i dont think so, dont judge me on my age i am young yes but i know alot more about zimbabwe than you, i read the papers just as much as you, i watch the news, my mum is an educated woman who educated me about my country, yes poeple have fled zim but its more to do with the econamy than anything else, also ive been to south africa for seven months as im partly south african i can educate you about my routs i know whats happening there all im saying is you cant talk like you know whats really happening because you’ve never been there, and one more thing i think you need to correct yourself about mugabe killing and all the rest of it before i was born if you know as much as you claim you do i think you may remember this country absolutly loving mugabe the thought he was a great man so “before i was born” either you dont know what your talking about (no offense) or you are really trying to belittle me. anyway thanks for your time