On March 31 in remarks to a group of British foreign policy experts, Rice justified the U.S.-led invasion by saying that otherwise Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "wasn 't going anywhere " and "you were not going to have a different Middle East with Saddam Hussein at the center of it. " [Washington Post, April 1, 2006]
Rice 's comments in Blackburn, England, followed
similar remarks during a March 26 interview on NBC 's "Meet the Press " in which she defended the invasion of Iraq as necessary for the eradication of the "old Middle East " where a supposed culture of hatred indirectly contributed to the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
"If you really believe that the only thing that happened on 9/11 was people flew airplanes into buildings, I think you have a very narrow view of what we faced on 9/11, " Rice said. "We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer. "
But this doctrine that the Bush administration has the right to invade other nations for reasons as vague as social engineering represents a repudiation of the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter 's ban on aggressive war, both formulated largely by American leaders six decades ago.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who represented the United States at Nuremberg, made clear that the role of Hitler 's henchmen in launching the aggressive war against Poland was sufficient to justify their executions and that the principle would apply to all nations in the future.
"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions, " Jackson said.
With the strong support of the United States, this Nuremberg principle was then incorporated into the U.N. Charter, which bars military attacks unless in self-defense or unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council.
This fundamental principle of international behavior explains why British Prime Minister Tony Blair was so set on a Security Council vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq or at least indisputable evidence that Iraq remained a serious military threat to other countries. Based on internal British legal opinions, Blair knew the invasion would be illegal.
This concern led the Bush administration to hype evidence of Iraq 's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which included Rice 's famous declaration that she didn 't want the "smoking gun " evidence of Hussein 's WMD to be "a mushroom cloud. "
Bush even considered staging his own casus belli by tricking Iraq into firing on a U-2 reconnaissance plane painted with U.N. colors to win U.N. backing for attacking Iraq, according to minutes of a Jan. 31, 2003, meeting in the Oval Office that involved Bush, Blair and senior aides, including then-national security adviser Rice.
Despite Bush 's promise at that meeting to "twist arms and even threaten " other nations, the United States couldn 't bully a majority of the U.N. Security Council into supporting an invasion, especially with Iraq giving U.N. weapons inspectors free rein to search suspected WMD sites and with nothing found.
U.S. arms inspectors also failed to find any caches of WMD. Other allegations about Hussein 's supposed collaboration with al-Qaeda also proved unfounded. Gradually, Rice and other senior Bush aides shifted their rationale from Hussein 's WMD to a strategic justification, that is, politically transforming the Middle East.
This new rationale essentially an assertion of a special U.S. right to invade and occupy any country that is perceived as an obstacle to U.S. goals in the world is a spin-off of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century of the 1990s.