Saturday, October 14, 2006

Careful With That Resolution Fellas




Kind of takes you back to those sunny days of 1441 doesn't it? You know, before the world was consumed with war. Oh, to have those 1441 days back.

I just went through 1441 again, the Security Council's "last chance" ultimatum to Saddam. Resolution 1441 set out a variety of terms and conditions Saddam had to meet including inspection regims and voluntary disclosures. Despite what you've heard from Washington and London and a handful of lesser capitals, what 1441 didn't do was create a pretext for war against Iraq.

Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and that troll from down under, Howard, told us that 1441 gave them all the authority they needed to invade Iraq. That was the backstop argument to the claim of a right of pre-emptive war against imminent attack. The WMD fog didn't take long to evaporate and the fallback of Resolution 1441 was equally empty.

1441 did not authorize war aganst Iraq. Tony Blair knew this. He knew that invading Iraq would be a blatant war crime unless they got a specific resolution from the Security Council authorizing an invasion. That's why Blair tabled a second resolution at the Security Council. When a head count showed the initiative was doomed to massive defeat, Blair had it pulled off the table and they all went back to the completely disingenuous claims about 1441.

You can read the text of this resolution by doing a Google search. It's not very long and, if you find the language a bit confusing, go to the last subparagraph, the one that says that the Security Council will remain seized of the issue. Seized means retaining jurisdiction on the question, absolutely not some implicit authorization for war on Iraq.

1441 demonstrated that the Security Council needs to be leery of Britain and the U.S. in drafting its resolutions. These are people who have shown they'll spin language around to the point of standing it on its head.

Now the Security Council is hammering out another, potentially critical resolution, this time in reaction to the North Korean nuclear test. Meanwhile, as the LA Times reported earlier this week, there are already rumblings about an American attack on North Korea coming out of the Pentagon:

"The U.S. military's top officer said Thursday that the Pentagon would have sufficient forces to win if called on to fight a war in North Korea, but the conflict would be more difficult without the intelligence and guidance systems devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan.Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that about 200,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than 2 million troops available for a war in Asia.

"Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be "as clean as we would like," he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East.

"'You wouldn't have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war,' Pace told a group of military reporters. 'You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force.'

"Although Pace did not name specific guidance and intelligence systems, Air Force officers have said they do not have surveillance aircraft such as Global Hawk and Predator reconnaissance drones available for East Asia because of their heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unmanned aircraft are used to spy on enemy territory."

Quick question: If the Pentagon has but 200,000 troops in the Middle East and another two-million available, why are they so undermanned in both Iraq and, particularly, Afghanistan? Just what is going on? With two wars they're not winning, their top dog is musing about going to war with North Korea?

The United Nations Security Council had better take great care in its North Korea resolution. It had better be watertight because there are some very scary players out there and they're not just in Pyongyang.


No comments: