(Cont. from Part 3) The invasion of Kuwait? Like the invasion of Iran, it could be shown that Iraq carried out an unprovoked invasion, an illegal "aggressive war" in the terms used at Nuremburg. And in both cases, very uncomforable questions would be raised about the legal basis of the 2003 US-British invasion of Iraq. The alleged imminent threat from the "weapons of mass destruction" was the only pretense of a justification under international law.
That's more of an immediate political problem for Tony Blair in Britain. And the Democrats can't easily raise the issue against Bush, not least because so many of them voted for the war resolution last year. But the international political problems that a full airing of those issues would create should not be underestimated.
Gassing the Kurds? US protests against our ally's (Iraq's) action at that time were perfunctory. Suppressing the Shiite uprising? Saddam could plausibly argue that the US had instigated the uprising and that he used acceptable military means to put down the revolt. It probably wouldn't fly as a defense. But the first Bush Administration's role in encouraging a revolt and then refraining from taking military action with our forces in Kuwait to at least mitigate the suprression would be more than mildly embarrassing.
Bottom line: it's not just incompetent implementation that's the problem with the Bush policy in Iraq. The policy itself has been deeply flawed from the start.
See also: Joe Conason's Journal Salon.com 12/15/03
No comments:
Post a Comment