- Last night, Scott Ritter, former United Nations (U.N.)
chief weapons inspector, spoke about the current war with Iraq to a packed
audience in the Statler Auditorium.
-
- Ritter began his lecture by saying that "this is
a tough time for us all. A nation at war should never be taken lightly,
regardless of the justifications or lack thereof."
-
- Although he is opposed to the current war with Iraq,
Ritter wanted to make clear that he is not an antiwar activist. He believes
that "war is sometimes required if that which you believe is threatened."
He felt that if the United States as a nation, along with its constitutional
ideology, was legitimately under attack, then a war would be appropriate
and justified.
-
- Ritter placed specific emphasis on the need for a proper
evaluation of how the United States progressed to its state of current
international crisis and how to best proceed from there on. He stressed
that no matter what the U.S. does, it will not win this war.
-
- Having served twelve years as a U.N. marine intelligence
officer and having fought in the Gulf War, Ritter is well-versed in U.S.
military strategies. He used his past experience to assess the credibility
of the objectives put forth by the Bush Administration regarding the liberation
of the Iraqi people.
-
- "I know intimately the Iraqi terrain and the government.
The policies that were advocated by the Bush Administration define victory
as the liberation of Iraq, the creation of a democratic government in Iraq
and the transformation of the structure of Middle Eastern government. ...
But this strategy will not work," Ritter said.
-
- Ritter described the Bush Administration's current war
plan as the "effects-based strategy" that operates under four
main assumptions: the support of the Iraqi people for the U.S. liberation
of their country, the lack of defense from the Iraqi military, the fragility
and the lack of resistance capabilities of the Iraqi government and the
support of the international community.
-
- However, according to Ritter, "none of it worked.
... The CIA was suckered."
-
- As U.S. troops are now finding out, the Iraqi people
do not want to be liberated, he said. Ritter stressed that, in addition
to the backfiring of previous assumptions, the strategy of a "shock
and awe" approach that attempted to create the illusion of a great
U.S. military force has not proved effective.
-
- "The Iraqi soldiers are not surrendering and are
fighting back. Our supply lines have suddenly been cut off. And now, we're
not so invincible as we seemed before. The effects-based strategy no longer
works, and now the war won't be short and fast like it was promised to
be when the President signed in approval of it," he said.
-
- Ritter believes that implications of this potentially
drawn-out war include a shift toward a more negative attitude in how other
countries will view the U.S. and its people in the years after the war.
He says that already, the Iraqi people will never rally behind U.S. intentions
because "they view us as invaders."
-
- Although he foreshadowed tactical victories, Ritter ardently
stressed that diplomatic, economic, political and military triumphs will
not result due to the U.S.'s violation of international law. He also said
that the United States has carried out its objectives void of legitimacy
and support from the U.N. Security Council.
-
- It has not only violated the U.N. Charter but also the
U.S. Constitution, he continued.
-
- "We are therefore asking our men and women to fight
for something not supported by the very Constitution that they have sworn
to uphold," he said.
-
- Ritter did not fail to address the fact that the U.S.
has managed to gain support from other countries. However, he called the
U.S.-labeled "Coalition of Willing" as a "Coalition of Billing"
in reference to the bribery involved. Ritter believed that both Great Britain
and Spain pooled their support because they desired to maintain a special
relationship with the U.S. that will elevate their status and power relative
to their European counterparts.
-
- Additionally, the coalition is comprised of many Eastern
European nations, which according to Ritter joined because the U.S. threatened
to veto their application to NATO.
-
- Moreover, Ritter drew from his past experience and weapons
inspection knowledge to firmly declare that he believes Iraq does not possess
viable nuclear weapons.
-
- "In my experience in Iraq, we have never found any
evidence. Given the poor quality of the weapons and their viability span
of about five years, even if they were made in 1998, they would not be
functional now," Ritter said.
-
- Furthermore, he described how in order for biological
warfare agents such as anthrax to be effective, they must be in powdered
form. Iraq, however, only produced a liquid form of the chemical and did
not perfect a method to transform and stabilize it in another state, he
said. In addition, the V-X nerve agents and the artillery shells required
for the proper assemblage of militarily viable chemical weapons need production
facilities, which were not found by U.N. inspectors. He thus concluded
that "Iraq does not have chemical weapons" due to the nation's
inability to perfect stabilization techniques for their potential biological
warfare agents.
-
- The lecture ended with a standing ovation from the audience,
and a question-and-answer session followed. These questions included one
that sought advice from Ritter on how to strategically make individual
antiwar sentiments acknowledged by the government. Ritter replied with
an emphasis on the need for a strategic objective that does not protest
against but for a certain cause, namely peace. He also encouraged active
citizenship and exercising the individual right to vote.
-
- "It is too late for stopping the war, but we can
change the government that got us into this war," Ritter said. "It
is a dereliction of duty for us to not oppose this with all of our strength
if this war is not justified."
-
- Many felt that with American troops currently fighting
overseas, Ritter's speech and discussion of war-related issues was very
relevant.
-
- "I thought he was amazing. He came at such an appropriate
time. He really addressed the ignorance of the American people and the
bias in the media portrayal of Iraq well," said Elizabeth Paddock
'03.
-
- "He was really able to articulate the things that
we felt but couldn't express. His military background and experience make
his arguments much more convincing," added Rachel McMichael '03.
-
- Copyright © 2003 by The Cornell Daily Sun, Inc.
- All rights reserved.
- http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/8185/
|