Don't ever break a deal with Uncle Sam, By Daniel Pipes

Two oddly similar searches are underway in Iraq these days one for Saddam Hussein and the other for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Neither has yet been found.

No one has yet argued that because Saddam has not been located, he never existed. But that is what some are saying about the coalition forces' not finding actual WMD. Probably those weapons were well hidden; maybe some were latterly destroyed. What if they are never found does that undercut the rationale for going to war against Saddam Hussein?

Hardly. WMD were never the basic reason for the war. Nor was it the horrid repression in Iraq. Or the danger Saddam posed to his neighbors. Rather, the basic reason was Saddam's having signed a contract with the United States, then breaking his promise.

Let's replay this video: Iraqi and coalition military leaders met in southern Iraq on March 3, 1991, to sign a cease-fire agreement. This was right after the US-led coalition forces ejected Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

The agreement they drew up had many provisions specifying the cease-fire line, prohibiting certain activities by Iraqi troops, ending support for terrorism. Foremost among them was the demand that Baghdad dismantle all its WMD. To give this teeth, Baghdad had to accept outside inspectors who would locate and destroy the offending weapons.

Saddam Hussein's regime had been routed. So his generals accepted these terms, immediately and without argument. They had no choice. Exactly a month later, on April 3, the United Nations Security Council endorsed these terms in Resolution 687.

The resolution required that Iraq "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
"(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
"(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."

THE UN resolution also included provisions for a "Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities."
This work of locating and destroying was supposed to be completed in 120 days.

No way. Instead, for seven and a half years Saddam Hussein and his minions played a cat-and-mouse game. They hid weapons and documents, threatened the Special Commission personnel, and on the sly developed new WMD. Overall, were more WMD destroyed or built in that period? It's hard to say.

Feeling ever more confident with what he could get away with, Saddam finally closed down the inspections in August 1998. His government blithely announced it had completely fulfilled the terms of Resolution 687 and ejected the Special Commission from Iraq. Saddam Hussein now had a free hand to build WMD without those bothersome inspectors. With this step, however, he broke the Safwan contract.

The correct US response to this outrage should have been "Let the inspectors back in and cough up your WMD-related activities or else."
But 1998 was the era of post-history dot.com fog when Bill Clinton was diverted by the Lewinsky scandal. As a result, Saddam got away with his defiance. Four long years then followed without anyone keeping tabs on what WMD Saddam might be developing.

Then came 9/11 and a new American sense that the world is a dangerous place. The old casualness toward broken promises was no longer acceptable.
Beginning in early 2002, George W. Bush began exerting pressure on Iraq to fulfill its agreement or pay the consequences.

The result? The same old cat-and-mouse game, with Baghdad and the United Nations both hoping this would satisfy the United States government. It did not.

The Bush administration rejected the pretense of UN inspections and insisted on real disarmament or a change in regime. When the former did not occur, the latter did.

The moral of this story: Uncle Sam enforces his contracts even if a few years late. Keep your promises or you are gone. It's a powerful precedent that US leaders should make the most of. The campaign in Iraq is ultimately not about weapons. It's not about the United Nations. And it's not about Iraqi freedom.

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America.

Speaking of Democrats -

I will always remember that on September 9, 2001 Tim Russert had as guests Condoleeza Rice and Joe Biden (among others). Tim's questions to Dr Rice were focused on the plans for missile defense.

Biden used his 'neurotic' tone of voice to complain that the US was not nearly as vulnerable to enemies with ICBMs as we were to the other forms of destruction.

For the full transcript:-
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.hsfk.de/abm/print/kongress/docs/opinion/senat.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsenator%2Bbiden%2B%2522meet%2Bthe%2Bpress%2522%2Bseptember%2B2001%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

GEORGE W. BUSH-ADMINISTRATION
9. September 2001 NBCs Meet the Press

(...)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Joe Biden, Dick Armey, welcome both. Senator Biden, let me start with you. You are the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the United States Senate. Missile defense system, you just heard Condoleezza Rice explain the Bush policy position. Should we go forward with a missile defense system now?

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, (D-DE): No, look, you're listening to Dr. Rice. She said that missile capability is ubiquitous. That's not true. There's the potential for Third World countries to have long-range missile capacity. None of them have it yet, number one. Number two, she said she wants to reduce-the president wants to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons. China has less than two dozen right now. In order for them to modernize and to merv their missiles, that is, put more than one hydrogen bomb on top, they have to be able to test. This administration sent a clear signal out: It will pay any price in order to get our national missile defense. I just got back from 10 days in China. The Chinese are wondering what the deal is, what's the story, what's the trade-off here? Are they really going to be able to go forward with the modernization? Thirdly, Dr. Rice shouldn't look at her-and I have told her this personally because she's been kind enough to keep in touch with me and call me. I said, "Check your own intelligence community report about what the Chinese will do with or without us having a missile defense." There is a quantitative difference in what their plans are, according to our intelligence community, if we don't build a system and if we do build a system. And, look, we don't have a system. Here you have the administration saying that we may have to break out of the ABM Treaty because we may have to test in a way that's contrary to the ABM Treaty. When we sit and ask them in closed meetings, "Well, give us an example of what tests you have to come up with," they can't. There is none.

MR. RUSSERT: So you're saying straight out, that the Chinese will increase their nuclear capability if we go forward with missile defense?

SEN. BIDEN: At-they will modernize, no matter what. The difference is the quantity and quality of their modernization. If we have a national missile defense, they will do much more than they would do if we do not put up a system. But we don't have a system.

MR. RUSSERT: But you also heard Dr. Rice say, at this time, the United States will continue its moratorium on underground testing and encourage other countries to do the same.

SEN. BIDEN: But they've also said, "We reserve the right to test." Now, Tim, what happens when we say that? We reserve the right to test when we feel like testing. We're not for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which other countries said they're for. And so what does that say? The Chinese say, "OK, you reserve the right to test, but we're not going to reserve the right to test?" Give me a break.

MR. RUSSERT: Will the Senate appropriate money to begin testing in terms of missile defense?

SEN. BIDEN: The answer is they will not appropriate money, and the Armed Services Committee just passed this in their authorization bill. They will not-I believe they'll succeed, that position will succeed, which is this: We'll not appropriate money unless you can tell us whether or not the tests you're about to undertake will take us out of the ABM Treaty. And, look, we talk about reducing nuclear weapons. Why did things break down with Putin in the discussions on ABM? The deal was, we were going to talk about building a national missile defense system in return for reducing the total number of nuclear weapons. Our Defense Department can't come up with a number. Our president has not been able to come up and say how much we'll reduce nuclear weapons. So the Russians are saying, "I thought part of the deal here was, you want a new ABM Treaty, tell us what you're going to do with reductions." And we can't tell them. They don't have a plan. This is an ideology. This is not technology. This is not-this has become their foreign policy.

MR. RUSSERT: Excuse me. The same question I asked Dr. Rice. How will the world react if the United States unilaterally says, "We're withdrawing from the ABM Treaty?"

SEN. BIDEN: Absolute disaster. Big nations have obligations to keep their commitments, and here we are-look, in eight short months we had distanced ourselves from our allies more than we ever had before, and we've brought our adversaries closer together than ever before. And why? Chuck Hagel said it best this morning, the Republican senator on the committee. He said, "Look, this seems to be"-I'm paraphrasing-"This seems to be their foreign policy." They have no big picture. They don't come up and tell us what is their policy toward China; what is the policy toward Russia, what is the policy-it's constantly missile defense. And I just don't see it as a defense. And, by the way, while we're building missile defense, what about the rest of our priorities? I'm holding hearings on the homeland threat. I have people like Sam Nunn and others testifying and saying, "Look, the threat from pathogens being dispersed by a terrorist organization or a Third World country is much, much, much greater than anything likely to happen, an ICBM striking us." We have the Baker report...

MR. RUSSERT: Will missile defense protect us from that?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely-missile defense will protect us from virtually nothing. Now, look even if the missile defense works, the limited defense-and they don't define what that is, Tim-the limited missile defense will, in best, you're talking about 90 percent. When you and I were in college, there used to be an expression, "One nuclear bomb could ruin your day." What's this idea? What are we being-it will not protect us from cruise missiles. It will not protect us from something being smuggled in. It will not protect us from an atom bomb on the rusty hull of a ship coming into a harbor. It will not protect us from anthrax. It will not protect-all of which the Defense Department says are much more likely threats than somebody sending an ICBM with a return address on it, saying, "We just struck you," knowing they'll result in immediate annihilation.

(...)

Little did he know that his predictions would come true in two days and then a few weeks later the anthrax. It is obvious that the testimony to his committee had some kind of info that he believed THEN.

Now this same Senator Biden is saying that WMD are not around? He is just showing that he will take any side of an argument that contrasts with President Bush's Administration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.