"Where's Waldo?" - The never-ending search for weapons in Iraq

By Brian Bolduc

On September 16, 2002, the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister, Naji Sabri, sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, stating:

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions."

Less than three months later, on November 27, 2002, U.N. inspectors began an investigation for illegal biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in Iraq by searching the al-Tahadi factory and the Al-Rafah military-run complex. Throughout the world, the inspectors' return to Iraq after a four-year stalemate was seen as a great triumph of the international community to prevent war between the United States and Iraq. When inspectors arrived at the doorstep of the Al-Sajoud presidential palace for a "surprise" visit on December 3, 2002, the event was seen as a successful test of the U.N.'s new authority to go anywhere in Iraq without conditions. Although the president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has agreed to the stipulations for U.N. inspections "to keep our people (Iraqis) out of harm's way," he also has criticized the process as being "unjust, arrogant, debased American tyranny." Even so, the inspections continue on and, as always, Iraq claims to have destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction. Does this mean Americans can believe the Iraq conflict will not end up being resolved militarily? In my opinion, the answer simply is "no."

Already, the U.N. resolution on inspections in Iraq is slowly but surely beginning to unravel. On December 2, 2002, the U.N. inspectors announced that some monitory equipment installed in a former Iraqi missile factory years before had disappeared. Iraqi officials told inspectors that the equipment was damaged in a U.S. bombing raid or just had been moved to another site. Also, the famous Al-Sajoud presidential palace inspection, which had been proclaimed as an "unannounced" assessment, had a few conditions contrary to the U.N. resolution. First of all, Kofi Annan and the U.N. inspectors gave the Al-Sajoud palace officials a one-day notice in advance of the inspection and also had an Iraqi diplomatic escort to the site the following morning. On the way to the palace, the U.N. inspectors got lost and actually had to ask their escort for directions. So far though, inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but then again, Saddam Hussein had four years to hide them if he had any.

Our problem with Iraq began when U.S. forces ousted Saddam Hussein's military personnel from Kuwait and defeated him in the Gulf War. On April 3, 1991, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 687, which stated that Iraq had to accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. A month later, Iraq promised that the U.N. Special Commission, known as UNSCOM, and its recruits would have "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, and equipment." This agreement lasted for barely a month. For over seven years, Iraqi personnel confiscated documents from inspectors, prevented them from dismantling certain facilities or programs, and restricted their access to "sensitive" sites. The U.N. Security Council condemned Iraq's actions towards the inspectors up to seven times, but Saddam still did not cooperate. To appeal to the irked international community, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.N. on February 23, 1998. But then, on August 5, 1998, Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council and Ba'ath Party Command, which Saddam Hussein heads, refused to collaborate with U.N. inspectors until the Security Council agreed to lift the oil embargo on Iraq and other sanctions put on the country at the end of the Gulf War. As a result, the entire U.N. inspection program came to a sudden halt.

The reason the U.S. has had so many problems with Iraq is because of its ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein. This man is infamous for keeping the Iraqi people in line by fear. According to a detailed dossier published by the British entitled: "Saddam Hussein: crimes and human rights abuses," all forms of torture are used to suppress political opposition, woman are bereft of basic human rights and abused frequently, and political prisoners are kept in brutal and demeaning conditions. Saddam is also known to kill his own people just to test biological and chemical weapons he's developing. On March 16, 1988, Saddam authorized a chemical attack on the town of Halabja in northern Iraq, which killed 5,000 Kurds. A common myth about Saddam Hussein is that he's not a threat to the United States such as Osama bin Laden. In a recent speech to an audience of 1,500 Air National Guard leaders in Denver this month, Vice President Dick Cheney said that, if given the chance, Al Qaeda would align with terrorist regimes like Iraq to be supplied with weapons of mass destruction. Former Iraqi scientists and even Saddam's former mistress, who have fled the country to escape assassination, tell U.S. sources that Saddam is aggressively trying to develop nuclear weapons and is close to achieving his goal. On a more interesting note, back in 1937, most Americans didn't believe that Hitler was a threat to the world. The general belief was that Germany could never recover from their loss in World War I when the Allies dismantled their armed forces. Now I ask, would we really want history to repeat itself?

Even if the U.N. inspections do disarm Iraq this time, what's to stop Saddam from rebuilding his army again? In my opinion, trying to gain U.N. support in attacking Iraq will be futile, because many countries part of the U.N. are anti-American. The resolution we have now states that if Iraq causes a "material breach" in the contract then the U.S. has the right to take action. But once a material breach occurs, you can be sure that instead of effective action, the U.N. will just debate what a material breach exactly is. Demetrius Perricos, the U.N. inspections leader, recently said,

"The people who sent us here are the international community, the United Nations; We are not serving the United States; we are not serving the United Kingdom. "

Mr. Perricos's comment bluntly shows us that the U.N. is more concerned about diplomacy than the threat Iraq poses to the world. Of course, war is an awful thing, but peaceful and helpful negations will never be reached with a tyrant leader like Saddam, who is renown for being untrustworthy. In the end, the U.S. and its only ally that has shown true support, Great Britain, may have to attack Iraq alone, but it will be the right thing to do. If Saddam stays in power, he will continue to fund terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, who are responsible for the numerous suicide bombings taking place in Israel, and all Americans will pay the price. Since the U.S. is supportive of Israel, the only true democratic country in the Middle East, if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on further, the Muslim world's resent for the U.S. will intensify. That could mean more potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. With its national security in mind, the U.S. must stop this threat to world and continue the War on Terrorism. No matter how many countries disdain the U.S.'s actions, I believe that the U.S.'s cause will be just.