FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

An Alternative to War in Iraq

by John Absood

As the impressive U.S. military rout of the Taliban regime and the terrorists they harbored enters a new phase, some in Washington propose a similar strategy for Iraq. I argue against this for several reasons and propose a non-military solution. Indeed, a carefully revamped weapons inspections process may well provide the answer.

As a primary matter, all of Iraq’s neighbors prefer a united Iraq to a fractured one. It would be difficult to guarantee Iraq’s unity by arming Kurdish forces in the North and Shiite forces in the South. The Shiite rebels in Iraq maintain ties with Shiite Iran. Iraqi Kurdish groups have a long history of struggling for Kurdish autonomy from Baghdad and a newly formed Iraqi Kurdistan could incite the restless Kurdish minority in Turkey to rebel against Istanbul. This eventuality could well spiral into a wider and undesired conflagration. While U.S. military superiority is certain to unseat the Baghdad regime, the aftermath is far less clear and America could well loose control of the situation on the ground.

More importantly, war should be the last resort and not the first priority. This leads to the question of why weapons inspections have failed and whether they can be redrafted to work. It is difficult to answer the first part precisely. Although UNSCOM has admitted to destroying much of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it was unable to certify full Iraqi compliance. Certainly, the fact that the U.N. commission dismantled more chemical and biological weapons than the allies had destroyed during the Gulf War is evidence that weapons inspections have worked and can work.

But attitudes need to change if a new weapons inspections regime is to be effective. Clearly, Baghdad must demonstrate greater willingness to cooperate than it has in the past. Political roulette is a sure recipe for failure. But equally important, Washington must unequivocally declare its respect for Iraq’s independence and integrity. This would require that the United States abandon its long standing commitment to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and embrace the U.N. mandate to disarm Iraq instead.

Clinton administration affirmations that the United States had no intention of lifting the crippling economic sanctions on Iraq until the Baath regime was overthrown served to undermine the weapons inspections process. The public debacle over Washington’s alleged interference with UNSCOM’s mandate and the resignation of key members of the commission only reinforced the perception in Baghdad that Washington was not really after Iraq’s compliance or disarmament but after the regime’s ouster. Baghdad’s perception that it is “damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t” must change if weapons inspections are to be effective.

Therefore, what is called for right now is a serious reexamination of each side’s attitude and of the inspections process itself. A newly reconstituted inspections regime must address a few loopholes in the original formulation.

First, the specific steps that Iraq must take to satisfy the commission’s requirements of “full compliance” must be spelled out in detail. Any ambiguity can create a situation of an ever moving “goal post.” This scenario would cause each side to question the motives of the other and would frustrate the process.

Second, some oversight would be required to ensure that the new inspections team remains wholly scientific and independent of any external pressure or interference. Secretary General Kofi Annan may even assume this oversight role himself or delegate a trusted associate. The possibility that the new team could be comprised of capable inspectors from “neutral” countries (particularly European) should be seriously considered.

Third, the new mandate must unambiguously endorse the lifting all economic sanctions once Iraq has fully complied.

Fourth, some meaningful monitoring mechanisms need to be put in place after economic sanctions have been lifted to ensure that Iraq does not reconstitute its weapons programs.

Finally, I believe that these collective steps can form the basis of a long overdue resolution to the Iraq dilemma. The economic sanctions have exacted a heavy toll on the Iraqi people. We have a moral obligation not only to protect ourselves from weapons of mass destruction but also to end the decade of suffering of the Iraqi people. This proposal can form a blueprint for achieving both.

John Absood lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

January 24, 2017
Sam Mitrani – Chad Pearson
A Short History of Liberal Myths and Anti-Labor Politics
Kristine Mattis
Democracy is Not a Team Sport
Andrew Smolski
Third Coast Pillory: Mexico, Neo-Nationalism and the Capitalist World-System
Ted Rall
The Women’s March Was a Dismal Failure and a Hopeful Sign
Norman Pollack
Woman’s March: Halt at the Water’s Edge
Pepe Escobar
Will Trump Hop on an American Silk Road?
Franklin Lamb
Trump’s “Syria “Minus Iran” Overture to Putin and Assad May Restore Washington-Damascus Relations
Kenneth R. Culton
Violence By Any Other Name
David Swanson
Why Impeach Donald Trump
Christopher Brauchli
Trump’s Contempt
January 23, 2017
John Wight
Trump’s Inauguration: Hail Caesar!
Mark Schuller
So What am I Doing Here? Reflections on the Inauguration Day Protests
Patrick Cockburn
The Rise of Trump and Isis Have More in Common Than You Might Think
Binoy Kampmark
Ignored Ironies: Women, Protest and Donald Trump
Gregory Barrett
Flag, Cap and Screen: Hollywood’s Propaganda Machine
Gareth Porter
US Intervention in Syria? Not Under Trump
L. Ali Khan
Trump’s Holy War against Islam
Gary Leupp
An Al-Qaeda Attack in Mali:  Just Another Ripple of the Endless, Bogus “War on Terror”
Norman Pollack
America: Banana Republic? Far Worse
Bob Fitrakis - Harvey Wasserman
We Mourn, But We March!
Kim Nicolini
Trump Dump: One Woman March and Personal Shit as Political
William Hawes
We Are on Our Own Now
Martin Billheimer
Last Tango in Moscow
Colin Todhunter
Development and India: Why GM Mustard Really Matters
Mel Gurtov
Trump’s America—and Ours
David Mattson
Fog of Science II: Apples, Oranges and Grizzly Bear Numbers
Clancy Sigal
Who’s Up for This Long War?
Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail