California’s reaction to the case against Saddam

The editorial pages of California’s major dailies were unanimous in their declaration that Sec. Powell made a convincing case against Saddam before the UN Wednesday, proving that the dictator has thwarted the UN inspections program and that he has significant, illegal weapons programs going on with no intent to disarm, but they’re divided about the next step.

The LA Times says: U.N. — Time for a Deadline

First, it must set an inviolate deadline. Hussein has smirked at and dodged U.N. resolutions for more than a decade. The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported last month that Iraq remained recalcitrant. They will be back in Baghdad on Saturday and will report their latest findings to the Security Council on Feb. 14.

The United Nations must then give Hussein one final chance to avoid war — by complying or fleeing — and be ready to launch missiles, planes and troops if he again disregards or disrespects the world’s clear disarmament demands.

The Frisco Chronicle agrees that Powell made a strong case for Saddam’s wickedness, but they prefer to follow the lead of France and Germany and do nothing about him:

Many Americans remain to be persuaded that Iraq poses a clear and present danger that would merit a rush to war — as opposed to the indisputable case that Hussein must be deterred and contained. Powell’s presentation, for all its detail, left far more to interpretation than Adlai Stevenson’s 1962 “smoking gun” photos of a Soviet missile buildup in Cuba.

The Orange County Register cloaks itself in isolationism and parrots the Chronicle’s rhetoric:

The case for a preventive strike to forestall a potential threat – not a pre-emptive strike, which would presuppose an imminent and visible threat of an obvious launch or massing troops for an invasion – would be stronger if links between al-Qaida or other terrorist groups and the Iraqi regime could be documented.

The issue before the UN, of course, wasn’t the details of Saddam’s next move with his weapons, it was whether he’s cooperated with the inspectors. This is the case because there are only two remaining options for the enforcement of UNSCR 1441: disarm through inspection or disarm by force. Proving that the inspection route is not going to work makes the latter inevitable.

The Contra Costa Times understands the options, and is sharply critical of those nations, like France, who want to play obstructionist:

If the United Nations is to remain a viable organization, it must enforce its resolutions or they will be meaningless. If some nations on the Security Council do not have the foresight to force Iraq to disarm, they can always abstain from any further U.N. resolutions. They need not decimate the credibility of the world body by using their veto power.

At the very least the Security Council should demand that Saddam allow scientists and their families to leave Iraq to talk with inspectors. He also must allow reconnaissance aircraft to patrol all of Iraq.

Saddam must be forthcoming about what he has done with chemical and biological weapons and what progress Iraq has made on developing nuclear weapons.

Saddam must do all of the above completely and immediately. If he does not, the United Nations must sanction military action to remove Saddam from power. The credibility of the world body is at stake. So is the peace of the region.

The Sacrameno Bee believes that Saddam could easily avoid war, but probably doesn’t want to:

The evidence laid out by Powell gives the U.N. inspectors more guidance for intensifying their efforts and forcing Iraq to show — now — that the U.S. case is bogus. If that were the case, Iraq should have no trouble proving it. Instead, its initial response to Powell’s brief was to call it a pack of lies and fabrications. But as always, more attention should be paid to Iraqi actions than its overheated rhetoric.

Saddam still has a small chance to avoid war. Will he take it?

The San Diego Tribune says the presentation was compelling, and now expects the Security Council to act. They also point out that the fence-sitting California senator had a change of heart:

One lawmaker who has been critical of the Bush administration’s approach, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., stated yesterday: “I no longer think that inspections are going to work.” The question Blix now must address honestly is whether his inspectors ever can accomplish their mission in the face of Iraq’s intransigence.

The silly San Jose Mercury News rewrites history in its attempt to duck the inevitable conclusion that force is now necessary:

Those are the reasons pre-emptive, full-scale military actions to remove even despised regimes have never been part of American policy. They shouldn’t become so now.

Actually, the vast majority of America’s military campaigns have been “pre-emptive” according to the first-attack doctrine, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Korea, Germany under Hitler, Germany under the Kaiser, Cuba, the Confederacy, and King George’s England; some of these nations had already attacked our allies, such as Hitler, but we were never in danger of attack here on our shores before we moved in with our military.

So here we are: the Security Council has already declared that Iraq must be disarmed, and gave them one last chance. Iraq continues to defy the UN, and is demonstrably not disarming. Is there any alternative to military force for enforcing 1441? I certainly don’t see it, unless Saddam has a Road-to-Damascus moment.