****For updates on his debate with Christopher Hitchens, click here.
Former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, a vocal critic of both the Clinton and Bush perspectives towards Iraq, has a new book. "Iraq Confidential" is on the shelves now, but Ritter sat down with Seymour Hersh for an interview recently. It will be interesting if the left wants to get in bed with Ritter, since although they are simpatico on the war, the left would have to stomach Ritter's disdain for the Clintons.
But let's get into some quotage:
Well, the fact of the matter is the United States was never interested in disarming Iraq. The whole Security Council resolution that created the UN weapons inspections and called upon Iraq to disarm was focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is a vehicle for the maintenance of economic sanctions that were imposed in August 1990 linked to the liberation of Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait, I participated in that conflict. And one would think, therefore, the sanctions should be lifted.
Can't say I disagree. Iraq was never going to win the UNSCOM inspection game with us acting as referees. However, it's hard to see how ending sanctions was going to help anything.
Hersch asks about the WMDs and suggests we've known since 1997 that Iraq was clean. Then he asks Ritter why he thinks Saddam "didn't tell us" (that he was clean):
People ask why didn't Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything's been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them, but the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control.
Maybe Iraq wasn't clean. I'd be curious as to Richard Butler's opinion. The two didn't get along, but Butler wasn't particularly cruel to Ritter in his own book. I'm also wondering if Kay, Duelfer, or other former inspectors will take to the airwaves.
As to mindset, wonder if he thinks Saddam would have taken a "forgive and forget" attitude towards the West for the butt-whipping we gave him in 1991? From what I've read the answer would be a big no. Arabs are patient, as we've seen.
As to his thoughts about Clinton's role mentioned above:
And I'm all in favor of that, bring on the indictments, but don't stop at the Bush Administration. If you want to have a truly bipartisan indictment, you indict Madeleine Albright, you indict Sandy Berger, you indict every person on the Clinton Administration that committed the exact same crime that the Bush Administration has committed today. Lying during the course of your official duty: That's a felony, that's a high crime and misdemeanor.
Ok, he's apparently a member of the "send them all to the Hague" group. I haven't quite decided whether these folks really feel that way, or are just using a clever debate tactic.
That aside, it'd be nice to know more about the bio weapons dossiers found in 1998 by one of Butler's crew, which was one of the events that led to the removal of inspectors. Another ruse by Saddam?
And of course, what does Scott think about the Oil For Food scandal? Were there any rumors about Saddam trying to buy off people involved in the inspections or diplomatic process? Christopher Hitchens recently said that Rolf Ekeus, former Chief weapons inspector, was offered a million dollars by Tariq Aziz for a favorable report.
Still more. As to a future strategy, if we leave "yesterday" as he recommends, what would his future strategy be to combat the terrorist bases that would surely spring up? Would it be more bombing or cruise missiles? Does he believe in Bin Laden? Maybe I'll have to get the book and find out.
In sum, it's hard to judge the entirety of a book based on snippets, but I also find it hard to lay heavy scorn on Ritter. Unlike internet keyboard cowboys such as myself, he's got the resume to undergird his opinions and the thick neck to back them up. He deserves a hat's off for his service, and I welcome him back into the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment