Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Sept. 24, 2002 / 18 Tishrei, 5763

Diana West

Diana West
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

That one, sturdy, missing word | An unfortunate typo in that letter to the United Nations, wasn't it? You know the letter: the one from Iraq about how "pleased" the ol' fulcrum of the Evil Axis was to open the country to roving teams of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions." Too bad letter-writer and minister of foreign affairs Naji Sabri dropped one word from the text. A corrected copy, obviously, should have read that Sabri was pleased to inform the world and other interested parties that his dictator (a.k.a. "the Government of the Republic of Iraq") has decided "to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without workable conditions."

That one, sturdy word would have made all the difference, recalling the frustrations of past inspections and guaranteeing the futility of future ones. Even in its absence, though, it's hard to imagine who, besides the Russo-Franco-Arab bloc and Peter Jennings, would allow themselves to be conned into believing a dictator as repressive, secretive and murder-minded as Saddam Hussein would allow anyone, let alone arms experts, to inspect his country "without conditions." Nonetheless, "Without Conditions" -- and without irony -- has been the headline of the week.

Not that there haven't been valiant efforts to dispel the confusion. Headdresses off to Ali Muhsen Hamid, the London ambassador of the Arab League -- the very group that helped get the Iraqi offer onto the Security Council table in the first place -- for suggesting that Iraqi civilian sites were already off limits to U.N. inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site" for inspections, Hamid explained to the London Evening Standard this week, "but not, as some people have suggested, for inspections against hospitals, against schools."

Strange how this little bombshell from a group in on brokering the Iraqi deal was muffled by most of the media. Of course, letting Hamid pop off in the American press might have too abruptly awakened the world from its inspection fantasy -- which was nice while it lasted. But even The New York Times is now gently breaking the news, attributed to administration officials, that Iraqi officials have already stipulated that "some sites would be off limits." So much for the bucolic thought of the United Nation's 63 weapons experts (from 27 countries) hitting Iraq's highways and byways without a condition in the world, knapsacks stuffed with radiation-detection equipment.

Of course, Iraq's no-strings-not position only stands to reason. If you were a brutal dictator with dreams of genocide, and all the nasty toxins you needed to wage biological warfare, say, were being manufactured or secreted or whatever in "hospitals" across the Fertile Crescent, would you throw open the doors to weapons experts who could end it all in a scathing report? Better to keep the eggheads busy inspecting dummy "military" installations.

And so it goes. You don't have to be a rocket scientist, or even an arms inspector, to figure this one out. Everyone -- France, even -- knows the Iraqi offer "without conditions" will soon prove bogus; the question is, when? The more important question is: Do we have time to wait? Unless the United States and Great Britain can persuade Security Council appeasers to sign off on a new U.N. resolution with a pressing timetable for Iraqi compliance and a trigger for military action for noncompliance, a threadbare curtain will rise once again on the long, drawn-out inspections charade we've all seen before.

So far, there are no signs of a quick performance. A meeting between U.N. inspection chief Hans Blix and Iraqi officials this week resulted only in the decision to meet again -- next month. Assuming they agree then on inspection terms ("without conditions," no doubt), inspectors should arrive in Iraq by the end of October, although simply moving in, according to the British newspaper the Independent, is a "process likely to take two months." Without a speedy, new U.N. resolution, inspectors won't have to report back to the Security Council for 60 more days, at which point they would have six months just to reach "preliminary conclusions" -- sometime in August 2003.

So, when diplomats tell The New York Times that "Iraq's gesture to receive the weapons inspectors could slow the pace of events even more than Washington has intended," they aren't kidding. But can we afford just to chuckle and wait? While the world was transfixed by the chimera of unfettered access to Iraqi laboratories this week, the London Telegraph was reporting on signs "that Saddam may be embarking on the opposite course of action." These include not only a surge in illicit arms trafficking with former Soviet states, the paper wrote, but also indications that Iraq is bargaining with North Korea over stocks of plutonium. With such material, British nuclear experts believe Iraq could create a nuclear weapon "within months."

Surely, that's nothing worth waiting for.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.

09/17/02: Fingerprinting, finally
09/09/02: When 'healing' overshadows reality
09/04/02: Tales from the Techno Valley and Forest
08/16/02: Elvis shall rise again
08/14/02: War with Iraq won't harm war on terror
08/06/02: Clinton snaps over Somalia
08/01/02: 9-11 anniversary shouldn't come with apology
07/27/02: An unstable common ground
07/25/02: Hillary fights hard for soft money
07/12/02: Goretheus unbound
07/10/02: Rosie takes a shine to Republicans
07/08/02: Are you still shocked, Sami?
07/02/02: Can Britney win hearts of the Middle East?
06/28/02: A war on terror or Islamists?
06/25/02: Blame the murderer, and the messenger
06/21/02: Up front and personal with Atta
06/18/02: Terrorism at the United Nations
06/11/02: Who's policing the INS?
06/07/02: Spa Gitmo
06/04/02: Can rock gods save the queen?
05/31/02: Hillary's war
05/29/02: Have you forgotten we're at war?
05/24/02: An antiquated luxury of the past
05/21/02: From terrorists to tourists
05/19/02: Hate U.
05/07/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
05/03/02: Pioneering television
05/01/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
04/29/02: It's the misconduct, stupid
04/24/02: Medal of diss-honor
04/17/02: Holy sanctuary or terrorist shield?
04/12/02: Egyptian clerics solicit martyrs for murder
04/09/02: Defining terrorism down
04/05/02: The Wilder life
04/02/02: Acting, equality and the Academy
03/31/02: Speeding to conclusions
03/25/02: Hard to remove blood (libel) stains
03/21/02: The tale of Nixon's tapes --- again
03/19/02: The Big Lie lives on
03/15/02: The tunnel vision of '9/11'
03/13/02: The American Auschwitz?
03/08/02: Hating the indoctrination of hate
03/05/02: Clinton and Enron: Old friends
03/01/02: Pickering doesn't polarize, the process does
02/26/02: Destiny's prefabricated child
02/22/02: The White House heist
02/20/02: Making the grade
02/11/02: Studying student visas
02/06/02: Understanding arrogance
02/04/02: The professor's war
01/29/02: Disconnected dialogue
01/23/02: Anti-Indiscrimination
01/18/02: How much is enough?
01/15/02: Oh brothers, where art thou?
01/10/02: Air on the side of caution
01/04/02: Blacks seeing red at Harvard
01/02/02: Clinton's campaign continues
12/26/01: A tale of two exhibitions
12/24/01: Taliban Idyll
12/19/01: Right is right
12/17/01: Hillary strikes out
12/13/01: Lost files, lost presidency
12/10/01: Revolutionaries never grow up
12/05/01: Immigration reform talk is not just for 'haters' anymore
12/03/01: A new symbol of justice
11/30/01: Beyond morality
11/26/01: Can't keep a good man down
11/20/01: Tough talk at the United Nations
11/19/01: Hollywood's other battle
11/14/01: What's the matter with Sara Jane?
11/09/01: A beef with bin Laden's Beef Noodles
11/07/01: Facing up to the FBI's past mistakes
11/02/01: A school that teaches patriots to shutup
10/30/01: The gap between Islam and peace
10/26/01: The ties that bind (and gag)
10/24/01: This war is more than Afghanistan
10/22/01: The fatuous fatwa
10/19/01: Left out
10/16/01: Whose definition of terrorism?
10/11/01: Post-stress disorder
10/08/01: How the West has won
10/01/01: Good, bad or ... diplomacy
09/28/01: Drawing a line in stone
09/21/01: Prejudice or prudence?
09/14/01: When our dead will finally rest in hallowed ground
09/07/01: We want our #$%^&*() audience back!
08/24/01: The transformation from Green Mountain State to Green Activist State is all but complete
08/17/01: Enlightenment at Yale
08/10/01: From oppressors to victims, a metamorphosis
08/03/01: Opening the dormitory door: College romance in the New Century
08/01/01: How-To Hackdom: The dubious art of writing books about writing books
07/20/01: Hemming about Hemmings
07/13/01: Justice has not been served in the Loiuma police brutality case
06/22/01: When PC parades are too 'mainstream'
06/22/01: When "viewpoint discrimination" in our schools was not nearly so gnarly a notion
06/15/01: Lieberman flaunts mantle of perpetual aggrievement
06/07/01: Is graciousness the culprit?
06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection
05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful
05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic
05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'
05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories
04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up
04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists
03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'
03/09/01: Felony neglect
03/02/01: Who's sorry now?
02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world
02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist
02/12/01: If only ...

© 2001, Diana West