Words have a way of coming in and out of vogue the same way that clothing can. After following politics for a while, I’ve noticed that there is usually a “word of the year.” The word of the year for 2004 was “nuanced.”
Democrats have a more “nuanced” understanding of world issues, we were told. Those Republicans lack any real understanding of the complexities of the geopolitics. All they understand is flag-waving and aggression. We should leave the business of running the nation to the smart kids, the Democrats, with their “nuanced” approach.
They must be joking, right? The Democrats grounded their 2004 campaign on useless and inaccurate catchphrases. “Bush lied, kids died” was probably their favorite. Others include “Bush is stupid,” and “Where’s the WMD?”
Trying to talk to liberals about any of these knee-jerk catchphrases reveals that they don’t have a nuanced bone in their collective body. Complexity is not their strong suit.
Let’s talk about the liberals’ favorite gotcha line, “Where’s the WMD?” WMD were just one of several legitimate reasons for going to war. The Congressional resolution granting the President the authority for war listed 23 clauses, and 14 had nothing to do with WMD whatsoever. Only two actually mentioned weapons stockpiles. The other seven “WMD clauses” referred to WMD in the context of Saddam’s refusal to comply with UN resolutions.
But if the libs were truly “nuanced,” they might understand that this war was not about WMD. Instead, it was about Saddam’s 12 year history of obstructing weapons inspectors. It wasn’t WMD, but the enforcement of UN Resolutions prohibiting WMD. Think that’s splitting hairs? It isn’t. It’s an important distinction, and something anyone with a sense of “nuance” should understand.
After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to the terms of surrender spelled out in UN Resolutions 687 and 689. Iraq was prohibited WMD and long-range missiles. UNSCOM, a UN entity, was appointed to enforce the provisions of the surrender. It uncovered 690 tons of chemical agents, 48 missiles and 50 warheads. The Iraqi government obstructed UNSCOM on several occasions, but UNSCOM was generally diligent and thorough in its duties. It was so diligent, in fact, that Saddam ejected UNSCOM from Iraq in 1998.
UN weapons inspectors would not return until 2002, and only as an effect of US military pressure. This second team of weapons inspectors was Hans Blix’s UNMOVIC. Blix admitted that he was never given unconditional access to all sites in Iraq. Saddam still wouldn’t come clean.
In October 2002, Bush appealed to Congress for the authority to act against Iraq, if necessary. He laid out his reasons in the 23 aforementioned clauses. A majority of both parties granted it to him.
His next step was to appeal to the UN. In November 2002, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1441 by a vote of 15 to zero. It was the seventeenth resolution passed, all of which demanded essentially the same thing: that Saddam allow weapons inspectors to confirm his disarmament. After the sixteenth time of asking nicely, the UN finally threatened “dire consequences” if Saddam did not comply.
Saddam defied Resolution 1441. He failed to heed his “final warning,” and the hour came to put up or shut up. The US decided to put up. A league of resistant nations begged for another resolution. They said that they weren’t sure that the US had an airtight case. Despite approving the “dire consequences” threatened in UN 1441, they still remained indecisive.
Colin Powell went to the UN to persuade the non-believers. It was silly, not to mention backwards. It wasn’t Colin Powell’s responsibility to prove that Iraq possessed WMD; it was Saddam’s job to prove that he didn’t. And after twelve years, two weapons inspections teams, 16 “just-kidding” resolutions, and one “last ditch effort” resolution, there was every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein did indeed possess WMD.
It didn’t even matter. If Saddam was allowed to get away with it this time, third world dictators across the globe would view the UN with contempt.
The Iraqi UN delegation swore that they had disarmed, expecting the world to accept Saddam’s “scout’s honor” as their only evidence. That was sufficient for France, a veto-wielding member of the security council, which decided that it would not authorize force under any circumstances. France gave itself a pat on the back for its “commitment to peace.” France showed absolutely no commitment to UN Resolution 1441, which it had approved only two months before.
Don’t be fooled. There was no commitment to peace; there was a shirking of responsibility and a commitment to allowing Saddam to act with impunity. Since the unfolding of the UN Oil-for-food scandal, we now know just how much the French had to lose if Saddam fell.
The US worked with the UN, and the UN failed to enforce its seventeenth and “final” resolution. And what were we supposed to do then? Walk away, leaving this dangerous situation unresolved?
If you’re a liberal, you’d probably answer yes. That would have been “peace.”
But we didn’t walk away. The US, UK, and 47 other nations refused to back down. In March, after all other options had been exhausted, the coalition invaded Iraq. After several months of not finding WMD’s, the rally cry of the Left became “Where are the WMD’s?”
The US and its allies did what they had to do. Ever since that day, we have been ridiculed by cowardly and corrupt nations who flinched when it was time to take action.
That is the “nuanced” answer to the question “where are the WMD’s?” So please, if you enjoy being obtuse, continue with the stupid catchphrases. But if you like “nuance,” then open your eyes. With or without WMD’s, this war is justified.
Ben Duffy is a Collegian columnist.
