Scott Ritter speech at RCSI, Dublin, 21 May 07

by . Fri May 25, 2007 15:59

"Q: Mr Ritter, do you believe that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a warcrime, as you mentioned Nuremberg? And if you do, do you recognize that the people of Iraq have a right to defend their country and repel the invader? And if you do, why do you call them terrorists for doing so?

A: Fantastic question - I have a reputation for never avoiding a question, but I am going to answer this and you're going to get me put in jail, because I have to go back to America {audience laughter} - but I will tell you this, a warcrime, well what is a crime? In order to define a crime we have to talk about a foundation of law that we are judging on. In the United States the foundation of law is the constitution itself, a document that I have sworn to uphold and defend with my life. And I take this oath seriously. Article 6 of the constitution speaks of, that when we sign a treaty or an international agreement that has been ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land. We are signatories to the United Nations Charter - the Charter of the United Nations allows for only two conditions under which nations may go to war; article 51 self defence, you attack me, I get to defend myself; chapter 7 of the Security Council of the United Nations, if a chapter 7 resolution is passed under paragraph 42, which defines that a condition exists which threatens international peace and security, the Security Council can authorise the use of military force to deal with that. So this is the law, this is the framework of law that we're dealing with. When we deal with March 2003, neither of those conditions existed - therefore, when the United States violated the sovereign territory of Iraq with military force to achieve regime change, which in and of itself is a violation of the United Nations Charter, they were violating international law - it's not me saying that, Kofi Annan said that - they violated international law with a premeditated war of aggression: yes, a warcrime of the highest order was committed by the United States government when it invaded Iraq - I have said this in the past, I will say it today - sadly, the world's greatest superpower is also the greatest Warcriminal State that we see. Not only because of what we did, but because we should know better, you know? That's the difference, Americans should know better, but we didn't.

Now, the case of resisting: you know there is a great movie, and this question always comes up when I talk about American troops - I believe in supporting the troops, let me tell you if I were in Iraq today, patrolling, I would kill every Iraqi that confronts me with the utmost ferocity and aggressiveness that is required to preserve my life, this is a life and death struggle and we cannot fault the troops for seeking to survive, we can fault the politicians that put them in this position. Likewise, while I believe that we have every right to defend ourselves and slaughter those Iraqi combatants who oppose us, notice the way I didn't use the word 'terrorists', I use the word 'combatants' ...

Q: ... from where do you derive that right? Which law gives you that right?

A: The law of human survival is the one that gives me that right - you give me an M-16, you put me in a foreign country, they try to kill me, I will kill them. Again I think we saw with Nuremberg that you didn't hold the individual soldiers of the Wehrmacht responsible for the execution of war, you held the politicians and generals that got them into the war, it is not the individual soldiers fault, it is the politician's and the general's fault. But the second part of your question was about the Iraqis themselves - there was a movie that came out in the 1980s, I don't know if you saw it, 'Red Dawn'? Classic American war movie, it's actually really bad, but it's pretty cool because you've got these American high-school kids and they play football, which is a great American sport, it defines America actually, it is about territorial acquisition and brutality {audience laughter} - but they play football, they're called the Wolverines, that's their school name, and they go off in the woods one day to do that classic American sport of hunting, because as Americans, every American is allowed to have a gun, the second Amendment according to some, and they are out there hunting, and while they are out hunting the world changes, the Cubans and the Soviets invade the United States, paratroopers come down, and they come back to their town and there are foreign troops occupying that town, and the foreign troops are pretty brutal, because Americans they don't like to be occupied, so the Americans are very independent, like "I resent this..." and BAMM, hit with a rifle butt. They break into homes and they drag people out, they line them up and they shoot them, there is no search warrants, there is no justice - it's this brutal occupation! So what do these high-school kids do? They form a resistance group. It's fascinating to watch because they did things like, you know the classic American movie, you've got to have visuals, so they get an arrow, light it on fire, and fwoosh, burning arrow in the chest of a Cuban killing him - and they are patriots, they are freedom fighters. They blow up cars, because you can't go one on one with the Cuban weaponry, they have supreme weaponry, tanks, aeroplanes etc, you can't fight fairly, you can't line up and say let's have a fair fight, so you put explosives on the side of the road, and when the tank comes by they blow it up, then they stand on the tank at the side of the road shouting "Wolverines!", it was great, and they cheered them {claps hands in applause} - but you show that movie to Americans today, and the first thing comes out of the soldiers mouth is, "Damn, we are the Cubans, and the Iraqis are the Wolverines!" The troops get it - these aren't terrorists, these are insurgents fighting for the defence of their home soil. Now they are certain aspects of this insurgency, because it is complicated, and you have Al Qaeda in Iraq, that may not be Iraq derived, that may be from outside powers taking advantage of the cataclysm in Iraq to impose their own vision of violence, it's complicated, but the mainstream Iraqi insurgent is not a terrorist, and the mainstream Iraqi insurgent is a freedom fighter doing exactly what I would do if somebody came into my home town and occupied my home town and treated my fellow citizens in the way we treat the Iraqis in Iraq - it is reprehensible, it is a policy that must be repudiated and the only solution is to get American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible."

--------------

IMHO, Mr Ritter's honesty, or at the very least, his honest attempt to be intellectually honest and consistent, is his best quality and one which is very rarely found in political actors.