War on Iraq

First of all: the idea for writing this post came before the attacks in London. Not that it really makes a difference. Maybe the post is even more relevant now.

On Wednesday I read an article in the Metro (pdf-document) newspaper. It was about a 'Downing Street Memo'. That's a 'top secret' memo by the British secret service to the office of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, published by the Times newspaper on 1 May. It's talking about the best reason to start the war on Iraq.

Yepp, that's it. It's a pre-war memo (about 8 months before it started) talking about all the options there are to start a war against Saddam Hussein. Bush had already decided that there should be a war.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."

The only problem was to get it legal. And that appeared more difficult than they thought: Saddam didn't threaten his neighbours and Iraq had less weapons of mass destruction than Libya, North Korea or Iran.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

There were only three good reasons for invading Iraq:
1) Saddam invading his neighbouring countries (like in '91);
2) big humanitarian issues (like we see in Darfur, Sudan maybe...);
3) official authorisation by the UN.
The first two points were not an option.

"There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case."

The key was getting it authorised by the UN. How do you do that? Just make him an offer he can't refuse. Or better said: set him an ultimatum he cannot keep.

In other words: make it so difficult for him to comply with the UN-resolution that he cannot do anything else than refuse the weapon inspectors.

"The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors."

As it said earlier in the memo: the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

No matter what your opinion is on the war on Iraq (or the war on terrorism for that matter), it can't be right that our political leaders, the mightiest people in the world, just come up with an idea of getting rid of someone and then just 'create' the circumstances and the evidence to justify it.

If you have anything to go against this, please let me know. I'm not claiming this to be the ultimate truth, but I think it is very disturbing.

Read the whole memo on http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ and click 'D. Street Minutes' under 'Key Documents'
NSC is the National Security Council
WMD are 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'