Bob Tippee
Before the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, US Sec. of State Colin Powell was practicing politics, not law. His task was to persuade, not litigate.
Yet questions raised about his presentation on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein assess the performance against standards of the courtroom.
Did he prove that Saddam is producing and hiding weapons of mass destruction, violating UN resolutions, and consorting with terrorists? Did he produce a smoking gun?
Most observers who raise those questions insist he did not.
Yet many other observers say or write that they are persuaded—now if not before—that Saddam sponsors dangerous activities that promptly should cease.
To no one's surprise, those arguing that Powell failed to provide satisfactory proof tend also to be opponents of military action against the Iraqi president. And those attesting to his persuasiveness tend to be supporters of such a move. Yet the arguments don't need to line up that way.
The necessity of war, for example, doesn't irresistibly flow from Powell's indications that Saddam and his minions are deceiving UN weapons inspectors, developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, and communicating on some level with terrorists.
It's possible to concede Saddam's mischief yet argue that war is too horrible a response. The counterargument, of course, weighs the horror of war against that of Saddam's wickedness in league with international terrorism. But those—not theoretical standards of proof—are the points needing vigorous debate.
It would be convenient if Powell really could prove—by courtroom standards—Saddam's "guilt." It's just not necessary.
Saddam's nastiness and international ambition are matters of record. Twelve years of sanctions have made him no less overtly disagreeable than ever. And intelligence strongly indicates—even if it doesn't irrefutably prove—that he continues covertly to violate UN agreements and to develop a menacing arsenal.
So does that or does that not represent a threat worthy of military preemption? Powell argued before the Security Council that the answer is yes.
The quest for an eternally elusive smoking gun evades the obvious: Powell made the case persuasively.
(Online Feb. 7, 2003; author's e-mail: [email protected])