Michael Costello writes in The Australian:
The case for war against Iraq remains as strong as ever – on legal grounds, moral grounds and security grounds.
This might seem a big statement in the light of widespread reports that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of military action in 2003.
If these reports prove correct, that would be relevant if that had been known at the time of the attack last March.
But the fact is the world did not know this at the time of the attack, and it did not know because Saddam Hussein had made sure that it could not know.
…..
Resolution 687… set out a short and long-term verification regime to ensure that Iraqi weapons were destroyed. Further, on the nuclear front the resolution provided for the indefinite monitoring of Iraq.So the relevant question is not whether the world knew that Saddam did have WMD. Such knowledge was not required to justify military action. Under the Security Council resolution, the world needed to be certain, and was entitled to be certain, that he did not have them.
Is there anybody who suggests that, at the time of the invasion of Iraq last year, the world knew with confidence what it was entitled to know under the Security Council resolution – namely that Saddam had definitely got rid of all his WMD and would co-operate in future in ensuring there was no resumption of WMD programs?
…..
The Security Council put the onus on Iraq to account for the destruction of all its weapons, as previously identified by UN inspectors, or risk the end of the ceasefire and resumption of hostilities.Iraq had 12 years to do so and refused. A fundamental ceasefire condition was thus breached. Hostilities were resumed by those authorised to do so in 1990.
The war was legal. And the war was right. The fact that John Howard, Tony Blair and George W. Bush say so does not make it wrong.
(Hat tip: Sophie Masson.)