Personal observations.


Blogroll
Sharing Our Spaces
Oklahoma Observer
CarTalk
Esther's Photos
Where's Esther
ec-432
OKBID.ORG
Oklahoma Economics

 
Since Colin Powell’s appearance at the U.N. Security Council I’ve heard comments ranging from opinions that Powell made a successful argument to opinions that he said nothing new.

I’ve even heard some people say they believe the visual and audible evidence he presented was created fraudulently for the occasion by U.S. government technicians.

Of course, the conspiracy theories can’t be proven false beyond all doubt. If one were inclined to believe that the U.S. government is so well organized to manufacture such evidence without a single news leak or whistle blower then all of the evidence in the world wouldn’t be convincing.

As for the arguments in context of satellite shots and intercepted conversations that we must give some credence to, Powell made a convincing argument of a fact that we already knew. Maybe I misunderstand world opinion, but I thought everyone was agreed that Saddam Hussein is untrustworthy. I thought everyone agreed that he is trying and will try everything to conceal a diversified defense (and probably offensive) weaponry industry.

Can anyone really believe that Saddam is a kindly leader who will ever willingly cooperate with the world community? Can anyone really believe he won’t militarily dominate his region if allowed to?

Powell’s evidence was good and not unexpected. The satellite imagery wasn’t any better than what can be purchased commercially from web sites like Space Imaging or Terraserver.com. The conversation interceptions were a little more amazing, though anyone knowing modern radio and wireline technology might have expected our intelligence agencies have this kind of capability. Once they focus on the channels of communication it is really tough to imagine any mode that is really secure. These conversations, in my opinion, were the most damaging by far. Hearing military officers discussing a cover-up of weapons clearly indicates the level of effort being put into deceiving the U.N. inspectors.

Here, again, you have to have some faith. The conversations were obviously not in English, but I suspect that if the translations offered were inaccurate the Iraqi attendees at the meeting would be pointing to specific falsifications to undercut the credibility of the entire report.

Powell promised to answer the one question concerning whether or not Saddam is cooperating with weapons inspectors. He delivered a well organized and documented argument that came as close as possible to demonstrating that the Iraqi regime actively tries to deceive the inspectors regularly.

The question Powell did not answer was the one concerning the appropriate response. Neither Bush nor Powell promised to answer this question. In fact, President Bush is assuming the answer to that question. He speaks and acts as if there is no question that if Saddam Hussein is still uncooperative with the inspections then armed action to disarm the country is the only acceptable option. However, this is where the real disagreement remains.

Countries like France and Germany aren’t resisting a U.S.-led invasion because they believe Saddam is a good guy. It appears to me that they resist it because they feel it is a terrible solution that may be as bad a solution as doing nothing. They want to step up the level of inspections to disarm Saddam. They seem to believe this can be done. If it can be done, it seems they believe, then it is a solution that is superior morally as well as superior in results over military invasion.

They may be right. I don’t think there is only one solution before us. We should either invade with an overwhelming force, one that can with some precision stop any retaliation attacks with some of those terrible weapons that Iraq says it doesn’t have, or overwhelm the regime with numbers of inspectors and level of intelligence that no antagonistic country has every seen.

The most important question before us, though, is the question of how the decision should be made concerning which course we take. Long ago we in America had a wild west in which if a man felt wronged or threatened he might just take up arms to defend himself rather than trusting the community and its designated peace keepers and legal systems. We generally left that kind of lawless environment behind.

We also don’t believe that our various states should take up arms against their neighbors when disputes come up. We insist they go before the federal courts and Congress to settle their interstate disputes.

Likewise, in the modern environment of a world community of nations we must insist that countries make their best arguments before the body of international organizations and if they cannot convince a majority then they must accept that and not resort to violence to achieve their unilateral goals. We will never rid ourselves of lawless leaders such as Saddam Hussein until we all submit to a body of international law and peace processes.

Meanwhile, we have the real problem of a very dangerous leader. I think we can convince a majority of the world’s nations to support far more aggressive inspections. If we cannot get cooperation on a military action we should insist on a very heavy inspection regime.
posted by Unknown at 12:26 PM