David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein of the Los Angeles Times note that the resolutions being cited by US and British officials -- resolutions adopted in support of the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 -- did not in any way authorize force to overthrow Hussein.

"'I think most international lawyers would say the use of force against Iraq is clearly unlawful without a second resolution,' said American University law professor Robert K. Goldman. 'The original resolution [in 1990] never authorized military action to remove Saddam. Bush's father [President George H.W. Bush] spoke quite clearly on that and said going to Baghdad would exceed the U.N. mandate'.

Tufts University law professor Michael J. Glennon agreed, saying that 'this is the easiest argument to dismiss. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force against Iraq beyond removing it from Kuwait'."

Some officials in London and Washington have also contended that the Security Council resolution adopted last year -- resolution 1441 -- provides the necessary authority for an invasion. But Keir Starmer, a British barrister specializing in international human rights law, notes the many legal and logical shortcomings of that contention.

"The argument that all the security council members, including France and Russia, intended to authorise the use of force when they voted for resolution 1441 is hardly compelling, and arguments that resolution 1441 implicitly authorises the use of force run into the same difficulty.

...

Simply to argue that the interpretation of resolution 1441 accepted by all the other security council members except the US and the UK should be abandoned in favour of military action won't convince anybody. Flawed advice does not make the unlawful use of force lawful."

The question of legality has been given far more consideration in both Great Britain and Australia -- the only other 'coalition of the willing' countries to be sending more than a few hundred military personnel to the Gulf. The Melbourne Age, in fact, published a pair of dueling columns; one by Liberal Party lawmaker Greg Hunt making a case for the war's legality, the other by law professors Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes asserting the opposite. Hunt essentially rehashes the arguments made by British and American officials -- claiming that Hussein "has been under an express UN Security Council duty for more than a decade to terminate his chemical and biological programs." But Hunt doesn't try to make much of that argument -- after all, UN inspectors in Iraq have failed to uncover any evidence that the country still has such arms. Instead, like Bush, Hunt tries to make a case for legality on moral grounds.

"Above all else, moral legitimacy is stripped away by the fact that Saddam runs perhaps the most oppressive remaining regime in the world.

In all those circumstances, there is clear legitimacy for enforcement of Security Council resolutions by a coalition comprising more than 40 countries and that is led by three members of the Security Council."

Charlesworth and Byrnes, by comoparison, steer clear of Hussein's objectionable character and consider the actual letter of the resolutions in question -- resolutions which they argue cannot be twisted out of their original intent to provide a legal cover for this war.

"[Prime Minister] John Howard rightly points out there have been 17 Security Council resolutions dealing with Iraq since 1990. The number of resolutions in itself, however, does not change the plain wording of the text adopted by the Security Council and the statements by various members of the council that these resolutions have not authorised the further use of force.

The Prime Minister has assured the public that Australia will act consistently with international law in relation to Iraq. But the arguments he has identified to support his claim that a war on Iraq would be legal do not stand up to analysis."

The 'Coalition'

So what if the Bush administration has walked away from the UN and the diplomatic process and is starting a war on shaky legal footing. The dynamics of world diplomacy are changing, right? Old, multilateral organizations like the UN and NATO are obsolete and irrelevant, right? The new model for global cooperation is the 'coalitions of the willing,' like the powerful 30-nation strong alliance poised to invade Iraq, right?

Well, that's the Bush administration line. Like Secretary of State Colin Powell, the president on Wednesday cited the 'coalition' as proof that the world really does support his war. And some in America's news rooms seem convinced. The Orlando Sentinel, for instance, finds it reassuring that so many nations are following the US lead.

True, the list of nations the president can call partners in this war is a long one. But it is hardly an impressive one, at least as compared to the coalition pulled together by his father for the Gulf War. As Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times notes, "the roster of countries that have committed combat troops to the effort all but stops after Britain, Australia and Poland." And Poland is sending only 200 soldiers.

The unavoidable reality is that this will be an American war. Australia has committed 2,000 troops to the effort, and about 45,000 British military personnel will take part. But the vast bulk of the 300,000 troops now poised to attack Iraq wear American uniforms.

As Jonathan Weisman of The Washington Post observes, "the contrast between the Gulf War with its 31-member, combat-ready coalition, and this assault will be stark."

"Saudi Arabia contributed 66,000 troops, 550 tanks, 300 aircraft and eight ships. Egypt provided 35,000 troops, 120 tanks, 60 aircraft and 18 ships. Syria sent 19,000 troops to Saudi Arabia and arrayed 50,000 along its border with Iraq, along with 270 tanks.

France, which this time led diplomatic opposition to the use of force against Iraq, supplied 17,000 troops, 350 tanks, 38 aircraft and 14 ships in 1991. The African nations Senegal and Niger provided combat troops to the coalition. In all, coalition forces provided more than 295,000 troops to augment a U.S. force of 430,000.

This time, even some coalition members are taking pains to distinguish between support for the goal of disarming Hussein and the participation of its forces."

The Gulf War coalition was built around NATO's strongest member states and the Arab world's most powerful governments. That US-led coalition included all but two of NATO's 19 member states, among them Canada, France, and Germany. Now, only 10 NATO nations will support the war, and the United Kingdom is the only other NATO member to provide any military support. The 1991 coalition included eight Arab states. The current collection includes none.

Instead, this 'coalition of the willing' is made up of countries that are either dependent on US aid or dependent on US trade, along with the 'New Europe' countries hoping to get American support for their NATO aspirations. Seven of the ten countries hoping to become NATO members are in this coalition. The Gulf War coalition was an alliance of equals. But this Bush administration has embraced the belief that the US must have no equals. In George W. Bush's unipolar world view, the US must always tower above every other nation. Is it any surprise that his government has been left with a 'coalition of the willing' reflecting exactly that mindset?

Embedded, and Unreliable?

"The Pentagon calls sending reporters into frontline positions 'embedding.' It's sort of like the ultimate backstage pass to war."

So quipped Evan Wright in the March 3 issue of Rolling Stone. But can reporters who hang out with the band be relied upon to report reliably on the music? Michael Ryan doesn't think so. Writing on TomPaine.com, Ryan worries that "the excitement of embedment" will dissuade reporters from doing the digging they must to find "the chinks in the armor, and the fear in the eyes of citizen soldiers, and ordinary people whose homes may be destroyed."

"Much of what we've seen is not news. In the last Gulf War, which I covered for Life magazine, even those of us who weren't favored by the first Bush regime got to see Bradley fighting vehicles racing across the desert, multiple rocket launchers, Marines and all kinds of neat stuff. I still have my poison gas suit and gas mask on a shelf in my office. Never know when they will come in handy.

But back then, the media were cranky and dyspeptic -- the military tried to keep us from doing our jobs. Now, we have morphed into some strange sort of courtesans. 'It is four in the morning in Kuwait: Zero One, Zulu Time,' one CNN report began. It's getting hard to tell the news from an episode of JAG. The story went on to praise the vigor, the aplomb and the determination of the troops. All those things are true, I'm sure. I've seen American troops in action. But I've also seen fear, uncertainty and doubt. Our military are mainly working class young men and women being sent to fight a war which they might not even believe in if they knew the geopolitics involved.

We don't get that part of the story. Instead, we get an ABC correspondent interviewing a CBS correspondent and an editor from the Atlantic [Monthly]. We hear journalists telling each other how thrilling it all is, what smashing equipment we have. Body bags, civilian casualties and disabled veterans haven't made it to the news front -- yet."

Joel Campagna, a senior program coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, worries that reporters will soon find that being "embedded" is far more restrictive than exciting. The Pentagon's guidelines are vague, and the military brass has "broad discretion over reporting," Campagna writes in The Boston Globe.

"The Pentagon has been frank: It plans to use embedded media as a counterweight to enemy 'propaganda' and to garner good press. As a reporter for a major US newspaper said, 'We're supposed to be the anti-Al-Jazeera.'

...

Bush administration officials embrace the embed plan but have not provided details or assurances about the access non-embedded reporters will be allowed. Officials have warned unilateral journalists to leave Iraq when war begins."

So, how can concerned news junkies avoid the anti-propaganda propaganda? Well, CNN correspondent Kevin Sites' web-log is one option. Sites, on assignment in northern Iraq, is posting first-person accounts of his experiences.   Discuss this article.