QADDAFI: BEFORE IRAQ, THEREFORE BECAUSE OF IRAQ

Martin S. Indyk of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy challenges the notion that Qaddafi gave up his WMD programs because of the Iraq war. Indyk does so by employing the facts in the matter, which suggest that this was many years in the making, and that Libya had offered to give up its chemical program all the way back in 1999. (at that time, whatever there was of its nuclear program was barely existent)

On the issue of WMD, the US at the time was concerned about Libya's clandestine production of chemical weapons. Expressing a preference for a multilateral forum, Libyan representatives offered to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and open their facilities to inspection. In a subsequent meeting in October 1999, Libya repeated its offer on chemical weapons and agreed to join the Middle East multilateral arms control talks taking place at the time. Why did we not pursue the Libyan WMD offer then? Because resolving the PanAm 103 issues was our condition for any further engagement. Moreover, as Libya's chemical weapons programme was not considered an imminent threat and its nuclear programme barely existed, getting Libya out of terrorism and securing compensation had to be top priorities. We told the Libyans that once these were achieved, UN sanctions could be lifted but US sanctions would remain until the WMD issues were resolved.

The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.

I'd love to see if this tidbit makes it into my final PS129 lecture tomorrow afternoon. I'm placing initial odds at around 15 to 1. The ball's in your court, Buggy!

(link via yglesias)

UPDATE: This piece from another fellow from the Saban Center makes a good complimentary argument.