 |
Does yes mean yes? At the Edge of War, Looking for an EdgeBy Rick Horowitz
The nerve of this guy! You give him one last chance to do the right thing, to do what the international community demands of him, to step back from the brink and let the inspectors in, and he says -- He says yes. Isn't that just like Saddam Hussein? Always causing trouble. It wasn't exactly a happy yes, a warm and welcoming yes -- or do you consider "dumb devil" and "the crows of evil" diplomatic sweet talk? Not even close. It was a nine-page rant, against the United States and anybody who supports the United States, but tucked in there among the vats of vitriol was this: "We hereby inform you that we will deal with Resolution 1441, despite its bad contents." And, for that matter, this: "We are prepared to receive the inspectors so that they can carry out their duties and make sure that Iraq had not developed weapons of mass destruction during their absence since 1998." Of all the unmitigated gall! Or did you think this was going to be easy? Going to war, I mean. Did you really think that Saddam was going to just hand us the provocation we need to blow him to smithereens? Later, maybe, if he slips up. But probably not -- and certainly not yet. This was Saddam the aggrieved, Saddam the peace-lover, Saddam the conciliator. He didn't even push the Friday deadline to its last agonizing seconds, but sent word out two days early. That's the kind of good citizen he is. Of course, nobody with half a brain in his head believes him. Just as nobody believes him when he says Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. And why should we believe him? The man hasn't exactly topped the charts candor-wise, and there's no particular reason to think he's had some kind of midlife conversion. Which, of course, makes the whole idea of requiring a response a bit of a game. If he doesn't respond, you've got him. But if he does respond, you can't trust him anyway, so what difference does it make? Which, of course, is why the Bush administration was quick to say that it's not words, but deeds, that matter. The inspectors will be "received," but will they be free to go wherever they want, as quickly as they want, and to look for whatever they want for as long as they want? Or will there be...obstacles? "See? Perfectly clean, just as I said." "We want to check the basement." "Absolutely! Now, where did I put that darned key?" Will any delay or interference, no matter how small, constitute a "material breach"? If the Iraqis eventually do turn over a list of weapons and weapons sites, and it doesn't square precisely with our own intelligence, is that a "material breach"? And who gets to decide these things? The Americans and the Brits aren't in a slack-cutting mood. ("If there's any fault, we must assault.") But our French and Russian and Chinese pals on the Security Council have already made it clear they see things differently; it'll take more than a toe over the line to get them sufficiently agitated. Meanwhile, the administration won't dismiss the possibility that simply firing on our planes patrolling the "no-fly zones" could also constitute a "material breach." You can't help thinking that we're looking for a justification -- let's not call it an excuse -- to go in. And you can't help thinking that Saddam is going to do everything he can not to provide one. It would have been so much simpler if he had just told the U.N. to take a hike. Don't count on it. Count on this: Saddam will try to maneuver things so that if war comes, it comes at a time of his choosing. And this, too: By the time the bombs start falling, Saddam will have backed off from whatever he did or didn't do to provoke them. Saddam the aggrieved. Saddam the peace-lover. Saddam the conciliator. Saddam the manipulator. Posted 11/14/02.
Twice a week right here: award-winning commentary from syndicated columnist
Rick Horowitz. Spread the word!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
