• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Michael Kelly, Clinton's Dishonesty & Iraq

Iraq News, November 4, 1998

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

Washington Post
November 4, 1998
No Stopping Saddam
By Michael Kelly
   On Sunday, the day after Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would no 
longer even pretend to comply with searches of the sites where it 
continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, David Leavy, a 
spokesman for the National Security Council, explained how we had 
arrived at this unhappy point. "Saddam's contempt for the international 
community has put us in another crisis," Leavy said.
   Leavy got it not quite right. Actually, it was the Clinton 
administration's contempt for honesty that has put us in another crisis.
   Last February, Saddam Hussein's government announced that it would no 
longer allow full and unfettered searches by United Nations Special 
Commission weapons inspectors whose job it is to ensure that Iraq 
complies with its promise to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
   The president and his foreign policy advisers were unequivocal about 
the danger in allowing Saddam to get away with his defiance. Pointing to 
compelling evidence that Saddam still possessed a considerable arsenal 
of chemical and biological weapons -- including, by one estimate, 6,300 
chemical bombs and 630 tons of chemical agents -- and that he was still 
building his mass-weapons program, national security adviser Samuel R. 
Berger declared "Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass 
destruction" to be "one of the most dangerous security threats our 
people will face over the next generation."
   Clinton himself framed the issue in the most stark terms: "What if 
[Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous 
third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this 
program of weapons of mass destruction? . . ." the president asked. 
"Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its 
will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to 
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I 
guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal."
   Faced with the threat of serious bombing by U.S. warplanes, Saddam 
backed down and agreed to allow inspections to resume. The Clinton 
administration warned him, unambiguously, of the price he would pay if 
he ever went back on the agreement: "Military force will ensue if Iraq 
violates this agreement," Assistant Secretary of State James P. Rubin 
said.
   But Saddam knew that, with this president and this administration, 
everything really depends on what the meaning of "is" is, or whatever. 
So he bided his time a bit, and then did precisely what he had been 
warned not to ever, no never, dare attempt. On Aug. 3, the Iraqi 
government declared that it would not allow inspections at any new 
sites. And the Clinton administration, mindful of its unambiguous 
commitment to meet defiance with force -- and mindful also of the great 
danger posed by following what the president had called "some ambiguous 
third route" -- did nothing whatsoever.
   Well actually, that's not accurate. The administration did do 
something: It backed Saddam against the inspectors. When Richard Butler, 
the head of the U.N. inspectors, defied Saddam's defiance by ordering 
no-notice inspections for Aug. 6, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 
telephoned him to urge him to call off the inspection. Butler 
rescheduled the inspection for Aug. 9 and then, after a second urging 
from Washington, ordered his inspectors home. Faced with the 
embarrassing truth that it was not willing to do what it had committed 
itself to doing, the administration followed its usual approach to 
handling embarrassing truths: It lied. Albright declared that the United 
States had "ruled nothing out, including the use of force," but that was 
just for laughs. Really, the Clinton administration had abandoned its 
policy and its promise to meet Iraqi defiance with guaranteed military 
force, and was instead pursuing a policy of appeasement aimed at ending 
the U.N. regime of sanctions and inspections.
   When U.N. inspector William S. Ritter resigned his position and blew 
the whistle, the administration followed its usual approach to dealing 
with people who tell embarrassing truths: It smeared Ritter.
   And so, Saddam did what was only rational. On Oct. 31, 1998, a day 
that would live in the infamy of this administration if the calendar 
weren't already so crowded, Iraq announced that the U.N. inspectors were 
banned from doing any work at all. This, of course, surprised the White 
House.
   If Saddam doesn't back down again, the president will order up a spot 
of bombing, or 23 spots, or 37 or whatever the number is that the focus 
groups tell him Americans would regard as a fitting show of might. But 
it won't matter. The damage is abundantly done; there is nothing this 
administration will do to really stop Saddam from rebuilding his 
arsenal, and he knows it. Someday, I guarantee you, he'll use that 
arsenal.
Michael Kelly is the editor of National Journal.