Bush's Place in History.

[wmrs2]

The Security Council did agree to one resolution, UNSC Resolution 1441, that called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force in the matter.

When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply with the US demand for such authorization on the grounds that it wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

We did not go into Iraq under UN authority.



Cite: May/June 2003 Issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine article by Dr. Michael Glennon.
"On October 25... After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in 'material breach' of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of 'serious consequences' if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.

It comes down to this, do we only go to war under UN authority or do we go to war in defense of democratic principle when our interest are in danger?