Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 4 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 11/13/19

Biden's Support of Iraq War Shows How He Would Run the White House

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
(# of views)   2 comments
Author 49223
Message Stephen Zunes

From Truthout

Vice President Joe Biden
Vice President Joe Biden
(Image by Kelly Kline)
  Details   DMCA

Supporters of presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden are probably hoping that Democratic voters will see his key role in pushing through the Iraq War authorization as simply a "mistake" which should not be a factor in the 2020 presidential race. Indeed, Biden now claims that, "From the moment [the invasion] started ... I was opposed to the effort, and I was outspoken as much as anyone at all in the Congress" -- despite his statements at the time and subsequently that he supported Bush's decision to invade even after inspectors returned and no "weapons of mass destruction" were found.

Not only was Biden one of the most important Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, but that support says much about the kind of president he would be.

There have been many tragic consequences of the war for which Biden and others should be held accountable: the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed; the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and the tens of thousands permanently wounded; the hundreds of billions of dollars drained from our national treasury; the social, economic and environmental damage inflicted upon Iraq; the misallocation of human and material resources away from real needs at home; and the resulting growth in Islamic fundamentalist extremism.

More importantly, however, is what the decision says about Biden's worldview, most critically his contempt for international law.

According to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, international treaties signed by the president and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate are to be treated as supreme law of the United States. Among these is the United Nations Charter, long recognized as the most important single document regulating the use of military force in the post-World War II era.

Biden defended his Iraq War vote on the grounds of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions being violated by Iraq. However, in articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, the signatory nations of the world agreed that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions demanding withdrawal. When Iraq finally complied through its forced evacuation from Kuwait in February 1991, this resolution became moot.

Legally, the conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction had always been between Iraq and the UN, not between Iraq and the United States. Therefore, the United States had no legal right to act on the dispute unilaterally. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687, which demanded Iraqi disarmament, was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were included. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments are violating all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about enforcement is a matter for the Security Council as a whole, not for any one member of the council.

While UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, warned of unspecified "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with the UN disarmament and inspections regime, the resolution also made clear that only the weapons inspectors not UN member states had the authority to report Iraqi violations. In the lead-up to the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the inspectors did not report any Iraqi violations of serious consequence. Furthermore, the resolution stated that the Security Council "remains seized of the matter," reiterating the fact that only the Council itself had the authority to approve the use of force.

It is noteworthy, then, that Biden voted against an amendment sponsored by then-Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution that essentially authorized President George W. Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.

If Biden believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India. Biden's insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the UN, and thereby opens the door to international lawlessness.

International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time the UN Charter allows a member state to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Since none of these criteria were met, the U.S. invasion was clearly a violation of the UN Charter, as acknowledged by the UN secretary general and the majority of member states. Biden's support for the war, therefore, demonstrates his belief that the United States should not be bound by its international legal obligations.

There is a tradition in customary international law that does allow for a preemptive strike in self-defense, but this is only in an indisputable case of a clear and present danger, such as troops massing along a border poised for invasion, or missiles being loaded onto launchers in preparation for an attack. It does not, as Biden claims, give the United States the right to invade a country on the far side of the world based upon unsubstantiated allegations that that country might be developing weapons that might be passed on to terrorists that might someday be used against us.

A broad consensus of international legal scholars, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the overwhelming majority of the world's governments recognized that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be illegal. As a lawyer, as the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as someone who repeatedly touts his knowledge of international affairs, it is hard to imagine Biden did not realize that invading Iraq would constitute serious war crimes. The fact that he did so anyway should raise alarm about the prospects of him becoming president.

The October 2002 war resolution essentially constituted a renunciation of the UN Charter's prohibition against such wars of aggression and an effective repudiation of the post-World War II international legal order. Biden's vote to authorize this illegal invasion, therefore, demonstrates his contempt for international law and is indicative that, as president, he would likely not hesitate to violate international legal norms in order to advance U.S. hegemony.

Next Page  1  |  2


Rate It | View Ratings

Stephen Zunes Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Stephen Zunes is Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco where he Chairs the Middle East Studies Program. Professor Zunes also serves as Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

My Support for Ralph Nader, Ten Years Later: Lessons Learned for 2010

Biden's Support of Iraq War Shows How He Would Run the White House

Obama's Unconscionable Decision

Biden Has Defended US Allies' Use of Lethal Force Against Civilians

Israel's Dubious Investigation of Flotilla Attack

Richard Holbrooke Represented the Worst Side of the Foreign Policy Establishment


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments

Dennis Kaiser

Become a Fan
Author 10174
Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Jan 22, 2008), 39 fans, 70 articles, 509 quicklinks, 5937 comments, 48 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

"Not only was Biden one of the most important Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, but that support says much about the kind of president he would be."

That is exactly why the Establishment and their bought and paid for media propagandists are making sure he is still as the main candidate despite his many gaffes and past history. One can only imagine how long ago he would have folded his tent had the media brainwashers given him the Tulsi treatment or even the Sander silencing. The Establishment criminals are sensing big troubles as their main choices, Harris, Biden, Booker, are proving to be inept, to say the least, so they are reaching out to the likes of Warren and Buttigieg, both who show a strong propensity to taking their orders to further their gains. A problem is brewing with this however as it appears the people have become more astute to the work of the Establishment and how that agenda does not include much "good" for the average citizen. They are now groping at anything they hope will get them their candidate on the ticket in 2020, hence Bloomberg is making rumbles and, of course, the embodiment of corruption herself is keeping her nose in the mix. She knows she can't campaign because every time she speaks her "favorability" goes down, hence IMHO Hillary will make a play on the second ballot at the convention when she can have the services of her bought and paid for superdelegates.

Submitted on Wednesday, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:26:14 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)

Lance Ciepiela

Become a Fan
Author 14196
Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Apr 4, 2008), 53 fans, 58 articles, 145 quicklinks, 4620 comments, 214 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

No - Biden is not calling for bringing W Bush to justice for sending our troops to Iraq on 'an untruthful mission'. W Bush is above the law after the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 'refused to impeach' him in the House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to remove him from office in the Senate - no one is bringing W Bush to justice under our laws and treaties. Of course, the #AUMF2001 never authorized W Bush to lie to the American people about Iraq.

Submitted on Wednesday, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:50:39 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)

Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment