Permission Slip vs. Global Test

After November 8th, the Bush Administration was still trying to maintain domestic support for a potential war Iraq by continuing to imply that military action would be a preemptive strike.

But yet the legal case that was being argued to the UN was one of non-compliance and not one of self-defense. The administration deduced to the American public that Saddam's "non-compliance" equals "threat," but the Bush Administration justified the war to the UN solely on their assertion that Iraq's compliance was incomplete.

The Bush Administration explicitly admitted their sole litmus test and low threshold for war in their December 3rd talking points: "The United States will be making one judgment: Has Saddam Hussein decided to cooperate willingly and comply completely, or has he not?"

This threshold for war for the United States was that Iraq didn't provide verifiable proof of destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles and didn't immediately provide access to scientists for interviews.

Actually providing actionable intelligence of WMD stockpiles, proof of a collaborative relationship with Al Qeada, or evidence that Iraq was some sort a threat to the United States was and still is irrelevant for the Bush Administration.

The Administration argued that invading Iraq was to "secure compliance with those [disarmament] obligations." The US was claiming to be enforcing previous UN resolutions, and so in this context the "global test" should have logically been that the US provide some sort of evidence that these UN resolutions actually needed to be enforced.

The degree to which these outstanding disarmament issues actually posed a threat the US never entered the debate at the UN. And so therefore the United States never attempted to argue a legal case of preemptive self-defense to the UN. It would be a different case if they did, but they did not.

Yet Bush continues to call Iraq "a threat" to this very day, and continues to imply that the Iraq war was a preemptive action. His most famous reference was when he said that "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country" at the 2004 State of the Union Address.

This "permission slip" phrase seems has been so popular and effective with conservatives that Cheney has repeated it over 60 times on the campaign trail.

Bush also immediately jumped all over Kerry's "global test" comment at the first Presidential Debate, and the next day told a rally, "The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France." He also said, "Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community, but I will never submit America's national security to an international test."

This seems to be such a popular and effective attack that it seems to be worth looking into.

And when one does look at the US legal theory presented by the Bush Administration, then it turns out Bush's own State Department would have to disagree that the Iraq war was a "preemptive strike."

From a legal perspective they state, "The actions being taken are authorized under existing Council resolutions." Although United States characterizes the war as "necessary steps to defend the United States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq," they never attempted to legislate this or provide any proof of this alleged threat to the UN.

Don't take my word for it, George Washington University International Law Professor Sean Murphy is a much more credible source. He has the smoking gun in his comprehensive "Assessing the Legality of Invading Iraq" that shreds the US Legal Theory to pieces.

As for the basis for the invasion of Iraq under international law, in the months leading up to March 2003, considerable attention was paid to the doctrine of "preemptive self-defense" expressed by the Bush administration in its September 2002 report to the Congress on national security. That report, among other things, asserted an evolving right under international law for the United States to use military force preemptively against the threat posed by "rogue states" possessing WMD. The doctrine no doubt was attractive to the Bush administration, as it resonated with the fears of many Americans—in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks by the terrorist organization Al Qaeda—that at some point WMD would be unleashed against the United States by rogue elements. Yet, ultimately, when explaining the legal basis for its action against Iraq, the United States did not assert that the invasion of Iraq was permissible under international law due to an evolving right of preemptive self-defense (nor that international law was irrelevant).

Rather, the United States asserted that the invasion was lawful because it was authorized by the Security Council. That authorization was not issued in 2002-2003 but, rather, in 1990 when the Security Council adopted Resolution 678, and thereby authorized a coalition of states to repel Iraq from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

The media have ignored this story because it is too complicated.

I am attempting to fill the populist gap here, even though perception is more salient than reality.

Regardless, I thought I would challenge conventional thought that the war in Iraq was a preemptive strike and point out that the State Department doesn't even agree with Bush.

There is a lot more behind this "Global Test" exploitation than meets the eye, and maybe there is a way to turn the tables on Bush for this claim that the GOP seems so found of.

More details can be found this overview of the Bush Administration's PR campaign to sell the war in Iraq