One voice could unlock Iraq's secret (Is there one Iraqi who will talk?)

The New York Times via SMH ^ | December 3 2002 | Thomas Friedman

[dead]

The search for hidden weapons hinges on finding an insider who will talk, writes Thomas Friedman.

The United Nations inspectors in Iraq have begun their investigation of Iraqi factories and military sites. Pay no attention. They will find nothing. The key to this whole inspection gambit - indeed, the key to whether we end up in a war with Iraq - will come down not to where the inspectors look inside Iraq, but who they decide to interview outside Iraq, and whether that person has the courage to talk. The fate of Iraq will all come down to the least-noticed paragraph in UN Security Council Resolution 1441: Point 5.

The framers of this resolution had learnt their lessons from previous Iraqi inspections. They knew that Saddam Hussein was an expert at hiding his war toys and, having had four years without inspections, had probably buried everything good under mosques or cemeteries. That means the only way we can possibly uncover anything important in Iraq is if an Iraqi official or scientist - a Saddam insider - tells the UN where it is hidden.

And that is why the Security Council insisted on Point 5 - something I did not appreciate at first, but do now. Point 5 says: "Iraq shall provide [the UN inspectors] and the [International Atomic Energy Agency] ... immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons whom [the UN] or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of [the UN's] or the IAEA's choice, pursuant to any aspect of their mandates." The UN and IAEA may "conduct interviews inside or outside Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside Iraq, and ... such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government".

In other words, the chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, can invite any Iraqi general or scientist to come outside Iraq and reveal what he knows. And should that Iraqi worry about personal safety, United States officials would be prepared to give his whole family green cards and money to live on.

But there are two weak points to worry about here. The first is Blix, an IAEA veteran. Although the UN has given him this authority, he is not entirely comfortable with it, UN officials say. The whole IAEA inspection process and culture was never set up to be prosecutorial, and it isn't in most countries. In most countries, the host government provides full co-operation. And that's why it is not clear when - or if - Blix will opt for interviews. This is where the US will have to hold the UN's feet to the fire.

But this leads to the second issue, which is a deeper moral question. Is there an Iraqi Andrei Sakharov? Is there just one Iraqi scientist or official who wants to see the freedom of his country so badly that he is ready to co-operate with the UN by submitting to an interview and exposing the regime's hidden weapons?

It takes just one person in Iraq who wants these inspections to be real, who wants Saddam to be exposed, and the whole house of cards comes down. And that person does not really have to risk his life or his family to do it. He can get everybody out. If there is not one such person in Iraq, well, that tells us something about the Iraqi people's own quest for freedom and a different future.

"In the past year we've seen Arab extremists risking their lives to attack others - is there one Arab democrat willing to risk his life to save his own country?" asked the Middle East expert Stephen Cohen. Because if there isn't one such Iraqi, we will have to ask, and many Arabs will ask, "Exactly who are we fighting this war for?" And if there is one, or 10, no one will ask that question if we go to war.

So watch this issue. This is the real drama.

[dead]

That may be sufficient if all they are looking for is a pretext. But it certainly will prove nothing, if no real evidence inside Iraq is found.

You didn’t get the point of his article. His point was that the right Iraqi could tell us where to look for the real evidence.

And when the inspectors are refused access to the “real evidence,” that will constitute a material breach by Iraq, allowing the international coalition to take action with UN sanction.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Is there one Iraqi who will talk?

There used to be, but Saddam killed him, his whole family, all his neighbors, and gassed the entire town.

[Common Tator]

I would like to play some high stakes poker with Friedman. In poker circles he would be referred to as a patsy.

If is very unlikely Dubya started this plan to take down Saddam without evidence as least as good as what we had against Castro in the Cuban missile crisis. How could anyone think that a president of the US would make all this commitment based on faith in some dippy UN or that SM inspectors? That is not even close to the way Bush confronts a problem.

The after action reports to congress on the Gulf War by Norm Schwartzkopf, show that Norm's greatest fear was that Saddam would attack our troops in Saudi before we had the force in place to defeat him. It was also true that it took nearly 6 months to get that force in place. We have only marginally expanded our transportation abiltities. We are most certainly playing for time.

Our plan has to give Saddam the false belief that he can avoid our attack right, up until the time we attack. Keep him busy hiding stuff and writing volumes of face reports while we build up our forces. We would want him to believe we don't have the proof. He certainly believes that if we do have it, we will attack. If he were certain we had proof, he would certainly start a terrorist counter attack now. That is not what we want.

The people planning this Iraqi action had to prepare the American people. They had to devise mickey mouse games that gave Saddam the false belief he can win. Saddam has to think he can win right up until the United States has enough force in place to assure total and complete victory. Don't forget have our civilian population here at home protected also. That means checking tons of people in U.S. That takes time.

When we have our ducks in a row would be the time to go to the UN and present the complete and total evidence, the USA has been sitting on for a year. Following that presentation, it seems likely Bush would order the US forces to start the attack following some short time period. He would then give teh UN that time period to approve the attack. The UN would have the choice to approve or dis-approve. They would not be able to decide if we attack or not.

If you go back to Dubya's UN speech that was the choice he gave the UN. You do it or we will .. he said. At that time Bush did not ask for proof. He did not say if you can't find proof we won't attack. He said you take him down or I will.

This SCREAMS to me that the USA has plenty of proof any time it wants to present it.

I would say anyone who thinks our actions depend on the UN inspector side show or Saddam Report has not been paying attention for the last 2 years.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Rather good insight.

[chilepepper]

there is not likely to be even a single voice raised to give out the details of Saddam's WMD since he probably cut out the tongues of everyone who knows about them other than himself and his clique...