2003 Year in Review

The Stuff of History

Any important period in history offers opportunities for various interpretations, depending on the bent of the historian and the time in which he lives. Historians have seen the American Civil War, for example, through particular – and peculiar – personal views relative to their position in time and the condition of the United States at any given moment.

This most destructive of American wars has been called by several names, which reveal more about the historians and their time than the actual time the event took place – War Between the States, Civil War, War of Southern Succession, War for Southern Independence (If the historian were a tried and true Southerner, the war was the War of Northern Aggression). The causes for the war are just as numerous – slavery, states’ rights, agrarian versus industrial, political corruption, conservative versus liberal, stagnation versus progress, etc.

The opportunities for interpretations concerning present day events hold true, as well. A look at the United States and its relations with the rest of the world can be instructive in this matter. Indeed, one example can suffice to show the variety of historical interpretations awaiting the future public interest – the war and occupation in Iraq.

Various interpretations of the Iraqi situation are with us today, but with the quickly changing course of events, they can get obscured by breaking news which tends to temporarily change the landscape. Too, these interpretations move in and out of public scrutiny given the rapidity with which events can alter governmental, military, diplomatic, and media thinking on a daily, even hourly, basis.

Revenge – This theory holds that Bush the Younger instituted the war to avenge the failed attempt to assassinate Bush the Elder in 1993 during a post-presidential trip to the Middle East. Saddam is believed to be the grand instigator in this dastardly plot.

Complete the job begun in 1991 – When coalition forces halted the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam remained in power because the allies did not force a march on Baghdad to unseat the dictator. Many observers saw this failure as a flaw in the American will to fight and to suffer casualties.

Violations of sanctions – During the 12-year hiatus, the Iraqis were guilty of numerous violations of the United Nations (UN) sanctions on strategic goods. They traded contraband across borders with Syria, Jordan, and Iran. Oil was pumped through pipelines across Syria to the Persian Gulf and sold on the black market, for example, in flagrant violation of UN sanctions. Allied planes that patrolled the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq were routinely fired upon from Iraqi military emplacements, again, in violation of the sanctions.

Weapons of mass destruction – Saddam gave the appearance of continuing his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, including biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Few doubted that the programs were still operable and ongoing. As late as 1999, the UNSCOM’s Comprehensive Review reported … there remained significant uncertainties in the disposition of Iraq's prohibited programmes. The highest level of concealment-related decisions are made by a small committee of high ranking officials. The Presidential Secretary, Abed Hamid Mahmoud, chairs this committee. The Committee directs the activities of a unit which is responsible for moving, hiding, and securing the items which are being concealed from the [UN inspectors].

Oil – Cynics viewed the latest Iraqi foray as opportunities for American big oil – the Halliburton-Cheney connection - to gain access to the rich oil fields of Iraq, thus reaping untold profits at the expense of American military lives and Iraqi commerce.

Terrorist threat (al-Queda, Hamas) - Iraq was a terrorist threat in that it supported both al-Queda and Hamas. Iraqi officials met with al-Queda in the Czech Republic in the late 1990s and al-Queda training camps were supposedly operative in the north of Iraq. Several alleged al-Queda terrorists were captured this week. Saddam provided well-publicized payments of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, thus aiding the Hamas terrorist campaign against the Israelis.

Misappropriation of oil funds – Allegations were made that much of the oil revenues Iraq received under UN sanctions were diverted to Saddam’s Republican Guard and personal treasury, thus violating a major provision of the sanctions that oil revenues be used to purchase food and medical supplies for the Iraqi people.

Refusal to allow inspections – Saddam refused to allow unhindered UN inspections of his arms programs. Too, he interfered with the inspectors as they searched for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which included biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Inspectors searched for the weapons or for proof that the WMD research programs were still in progress.

During the last round of inspections prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the US was particularly put off by the absurd cat and mouse game between the UN inspectors and the Iraqi government, which mirrored the situation of the previous inspections routines. Instead of Iraqi presenting its records and the locations of its facilities, the UN team under Hans Blix had to find them, if they existed.

UN recalcitrance – The United States was bitterly disappointed with the lack of resolve by the UN in pursuing its mandate to press the Iraqis to adhere to the sanctions and the inspections. The UN came across as being a weak and ineffectual organization incapable of or unwilling to enforce its own stipulations.

German – French opposition – Germany and France were against any military action against Saddam’s regime. In fact, in the months leading up to the US declaration, they had worked to have all sanctions dropped. This move was seen as a favor to the Iraqi regime in return for which Germany and France would receive most favored nation status with Iraq – a quid pro quo, so to speak. Too, despite the sanctions, German and French companies had invested heavily in Iraq, and, at the behest of Saddam, the French government worked to promote Iraq’s status among the league of nations.

Imminent threat to other nations - It was widely believed Iraq possessed the means to deliver medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads. Given the opportunity, Saddam could launch attacks not only against Israel but also against European states, as well as American bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan.

These are the primary reasons the Bush administration gives for the United States preemptive strike against Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave some of these views in his presentation to the United Nations prior to the American attack. National Security Advisor Condeleezza Rice reiterated the same in a interviews on news programs. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has called attention to them in his daily briefings on the course of the war and the occupation. Bush has used them, singly and in combination, in his speeches and remarks to the public and to the press.

And the media – both liberal and conservative – have hammered at these justifications either to praise the preemptive action of the United States or to condemn the unilateral course the Bush administration chose in place of the more ‘honorable’ route through the United Nations.

It would serve us well to look at these reasons to see if they are sound justifications for a war in which American lives and prestige are at stake; or, if they are merely bold rationalizations for a sinister plot to topple a legitimate regime. Over the next weeks, I’ll take a fresh look at these issues and see how they hold up to in-depth scrutiny.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
December 1, 2003