War in Iraq … Gulf War Extension?
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, WarAn interesting read from an interview with a former military intelligence officer and UNSCOM inspector regarding WMDs in Iraq.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004.
He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq
An excellent discussion point mentioned in this interview was the question of what was the fundamental issue involving the situation in Iraq.
FP: So do you think the WMD is the central issue regarding Iraq?
Tierney: No, and it never should have been an issue. The First Gulf War — and I use this term as a convention, since this is actually all the same war — was a prime example of managing war instead of waging it. Instead of telling Saddam to get out of Kuwait or we will push him out, we should have said to get out of Kuwait or we will remove him from power.
As it was, we were projecting our respect for human life on Saddam, when actually, from his point of view, we were doing him a favor by killing mostly Shi’ite military members who were a threat to his regime.
I realize that Saudi Arabia, our host, did not want a change in government in Iraq, and they had helped us bring down the Soviet Union with oil price manipulation, but we should have bent them to our will instead of vice versa. Saddam would not have risked losing power to keep Kuwait, and we could have avoided this whole ordeal.
We topped one mistake with another, expecting Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party, a criminal syndicate masquerading as a political party, to abide by any arms control agreement. Gun control and Arms control both arise from the “mankind is good� worldview.
If you control the environment, i.e. get rid of the guns, then man’s natural goodness will rise to the surface. I hope it is evidence after more than a decade of Iraqi intransigence how foolish this position is. The sobering fact is that if a nation feels it is in their best interest to have certain weapons, they are going to have them.
Chemical weapons were critical to warding off hoards of Iranian fighters, and the Iraqis knew they would always be in a position of weakness against Israel without nuclear weapons. The United States kept nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union, but we would deny the same logic for Iraq?
In all the analysis and conjecturing that’s been done to date as to justification and/or challenges for going to war with Iraq, have we been merely chasing after symptoms of the bigger issue?
Should the examination extend back to the “First” Gulf War, and it’s unfinished business, instead of concentrating exclusively upon the WMD issue?
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 17th, 2005 and is filed under In The News, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
“Should the examination extend back to the “Firstâ€Â? Gulf War, and it’s unfinished business, instead of concentrating exclusively upon the WMD issue? ”
Its amazing to me that this question is even asked, just like its amazing how Democrats keep harping on the “bush lied to me so i would vote to go to war” meme. Every right-wing pundit and libertarian blogger was advocationg the position stated by this unscom guy during the 2004 election, but no one in the MSM wanted to consider this because it might upset Kerry’s chances of election.
The congress voted on 20 reasons to go to war, other than the existance of WMD (including enforcing UN resolutions, ending the kurdish holacaust, support for terrorists ect…)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
November 17th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Going Wobbly?
So, we now come back to the present and calls from the Left to abandon ship, tuck tail and run, and to give up on the endeavor in Iraq and the Middle East. Hogwash…
November 17th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
So much emphasis has been placed upon the WMDs existence issue that a more fundamental point is being overlooked. The objectives of the Gulf War were not fully met, so we continue to grapple with the situation in Iraq and now the pressure to cut and run.
Are we going to make the same mistake in Iraq that has appeared to have been made in the Gulf War?
November 18th, 2005 at 9:26 am
The First gulf war had a clear objective and popular support, and the object was met. Should we have kept going? I agree with you Denise, we should have. This war however did not have a clear objective and it did not have popular support, Support, but not a majority of support. There was a lot of confusion about the War in general by the population; confusion that was created in part by this administration. Agreed cut and run is not the best option, but its better than the “Stay the Course” option, when the course is off track. Bush needs to Grow some Balls, tell America that mistakes were made, and that we need to do what needs to be done and flood Iraq with American Troops, Kill out the insurgency or at least knock it down, and get the Iraq security in check. This is so we don’t leave Iraq with a weakened Security force, and a strong Insurgency. However, Bush is going to go Wishy Washy on this, half ass it for a while longer, then split. Most likely flying in on a big jet through a huge banner Screaming “Mission Complete - Again”. Oh with a huge cock piece expressing his manhood.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
“the object was met” - in a way, but the war didn’t end, it just slowed down. There was a ceasefire, not a peace treaty, a ceasefire that Iraq started to violate very soon. At the latest, the attempt to assassinate Bush Senior in 1993 drove a cart and horses through the ceasefire. The Allies could have invaded Iraq at any time thereafter on the basis that the ceasefire no longer held. As Tierney says, it’s all the same war.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Look, I could kind of see that logic, but then could we apply that to North Korea? If we got back into it with North Korea, would it still be the Korean War continued? I’m thinking most likely not. The caveat there is that we have troops strengths stationed there as if there is a continuation of the cease fire to that war. The same can not be said of the troop strengths left from the invasion points in the gulf. We did have some troops, but not sufficient enough to consider a deterent. I just don’t want to confuse this action with the other. Outside of that a War resolution was voted on and passed making this a different action entirely. Let’s not muddy the waters any more than they already are.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:44 am
Good job.