DAVID Kay, the former chief weapons inspector of UNSCOM, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, wrote a piece in The Washington Post last Sunday about the current search for a "smoking gun" by weapons inspectors in Iraq ("It was never about a smoking gun," Jan. 19). What he said should be clear by now: There is unlikely to be a "smoking gun" found in Iraq, some cache of chemical weapons or the like, that will give the United States clear justification for war. The United States would be better off considering whether or not we should go to war than looking for justification to do so.
In his article, the first sentence Kay writes is, "When it comes to U.N. weapons inspection in Iraq, looking for a smoking gun is a fool's mission." This is not the opinion of a right-winger in the defense department who wants war. This is the expert analysis of someone who was in Iraq in 1991 in the same position that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix is in now.
Kay details the hardships of finding a "smoking gun" based on his own experience in 1991. "As a result, the UNSCOM team I led was also forced to find a smoking gun. It is a nearly impossible task, which is why it should never be the standard of mission success."
Finding hidden weapons in a country as big as Iraq is a very difficult task. But Kay says the problem is compounded because there are a relatively small number of inspectors who are under constant surveillance. "Surprise" inspections are rarely a surprise, because Iraqi security has everything bugged. Kay says, "Then, as now, the inspectors operated in an environment that was thoroughly monitored by Iraq. Hotel rooms, restaurants, offices and cars were all bugged." The point of Kay's article is that the case for war should not depend on what inspectors find.
But both those in favor of the war and those against rely on what the inspectors find or do not find to bolster their argument. This is ridiculous and serves to distract from the central issues in deciding whether or not to go to war.
There are certainly many reasons why removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq would be positive. First off, the Iraqi people would be liberated. Also, Iraq would pose less of a threat to its neighbors and the United States. As the United States found out with Afghanistan and was recently reminded with North Korea, repressive regimes are not only bad for their own people but for the international community as well. But to prove to the Europeans and skeptical Americans that war is necessary should not rest on the backs of Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
If one considers why the United States should not go to war with Iraq, there are two main reasons. First off, Iraq is not the biggest threat in the world to international security. Al Qaeda is still around and likely more dangerous than ever. North Korea has been very busy lately threatening the United States with its plans to restart its nuclear programs. Both of these issues -- terrorism and North Korea -- are far more important than Iraq. The United States saw firsthand what Al Qaeda is capable of on Sept. 11, and everyone knows how dangerous the nuclear weapons that North Korea craves really are. Coming in a very distant third is the threat of Iraq. This alone is reason enough not to go to war; we have more pressing issues to tend to.
A second reason not to go to war is that any action would essentially be a preemptive strike, and this is a very cloudy issue, both morally and legally.
But those against war should not use the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction, should this be what the inspectors ultimately conclude, as an excuse not to go to war. Kay points out that most of the current inspections are of sites that were inspected in the 1990s and were put under long-term monitoring by the United Nations are unlikely to produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
One way to counter this is through surprise inspections -- but, as detailed above, the Iraqis are often aware of these in advance. Those against war should not use the failure to find banned weapons in a country the size of Iraq to buttress their arguments.
The fate of American troops as well as the Iraqi people should not depend on what inspectors are able to locate. It is the equivalent of going to the beach with a metal detector and, based on what you find, deciding whether or not to go to war.
Congress and the president must take into account numerous factors in deciding whether or not war with Iraq is necessary. But this decision should not rest on what U.N. weapons inspectors do or do not find.
(Harris Freier's column appeared Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 2 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
