regular features 
greatest hits 
archives 
search 
links 
email us 
The Daily Blog 

November 16, 2002

Hans Across America

60 Minutes will be running an interview with head UN weapons inspector Hans Blix tomorrow. The money quote:


What now? Well, let me tell you what now. I'm gonna call a couple of pipe-hittin' Swedish diplomats, who'll go to work on Saddam with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin’, Iraqi boy? I ain’t through with you by a long shot. I’m gonna get medieval on your ass.

...OK, I made that up. The truth is considerably more frightening. In case the link to Drudge is broken, I'm going to reproduce the whole thing here:


BLIX CONCEDES IRAQIS MAY DECEIVE INSPECTORS AGAIN
Fri Nov 15 2002 13:16:54 ET

He Also Admits He Can’t Guarantee the Integrity of the Inspectors

Suggest that Han Blix might need to be aggressive on his mission to ferret out Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, as Steve Kroft did, and the Swedish diplomat cautions that aggression is not permitted under his U.N. charter. So how will he perform his inspections? "We’ll be correct and effective," he tells Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 17 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on CBS.

"Aggressive is an American quality. You are aggressive in business. That’s fine. Aggression is prohibited under U.N. charter," Blix tells Kroft. "And as a European, I would rather use the word dynamic and effective."

Oh - my - God.

Where did they find this guy?

Anybody can catch a bus in Reality and ride it to the intersection of Stereotype and Self-Parody. Mr. Blix, however, missed his stop, rode right through the Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, past the Phantom Tollboth, changed lines at the Ramsey Clark Terminal, and carried into the nether regions of --- I don't even know what to call it --- The Land of Stupidhead Weapon Inspectors? Bizarro World? The United Nations?

How pointy is Herr Blix's hair? Will the inspections also be "proactive" and "best in class" in order that they may be fully buzzword compliant? What will be the deliverables for each milestone in the inspection process? Is Blix up to "owning the challenge"? [for an excellent short course in management gabble, see this here dynamic and effective comic.] Does he realize that "dynamic" and "effective" are two words?

Back to Hans:


Blix, speaking in his first U.S. interview since the U.N. gave him sweeping new powers to inspect for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, concedes the new powers cannot make people tell the truth who were deceptive the last time inspectors entered Iraq. "[The Iraqis] certainly did not give accurate answers to the questions they should answer. It could happen again," says Blix.

Y'think? Gracious me, I hope I never get so cynical as to believe that someone would lie to me twice, especially when it would interfere with my dynamic effectiveness.

Hands up, anyone who thinks that an weapons inspection process that depends on the veracity of the guys who are hiding the weapons (thus creating the necessity for inspections) might be cordially labelled a "a craptacular waste of time".


He can’t even guarantee if all of his 280 weapons inspectors from various countries will not undermine the effort by tipping off the Iraqis. "I can never have 100 percent guarantees that no one will not be someone who worked for a state [as an intelligence agent]. If I discover that, then I’ll fire the person."

Well, Mister Bigshot, The International Brotherhood of Weapons Inspectors, Local #3955, may have a thing or two to say about that. But really --- if you think somebody's a spy, why don't you ask the Iraqis if someone's tipping them off? Surely they wouldn't lie to you about something important like that.


Blix, however, says the imminent threat of war makes the situation different than the last time inspections were carried out in 1998. "[The Iraqis] have not been under quite the same stress and pressure as they are now," he tells Kroft. "There is this difference: they know that the consequences might be very serious this time. You have a unanimous [U.N.] Security Council that demands Iraq to cooperate," he says. "I think it’s a very somber moment and I hope that this is taken to heart by the Iraqis," says Blix.

That's right. Saddam has been presented with that most dreaded of diplomatic notes, the "No foolies! This time we mean it!" communique. Such notes, issued to Saddam in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and twice in 1997, make it clear that deception, obfuscation, wrongheadedness, balking, crossed fingers, and other bad stuff, will not be tolerated.


No matter the severity of the present situation, the Iraqis still have the advantage in the inspection process, says veteran U.N. weapons inspector Tim McCarthy. "[Iraqis] know who’s defected from their country and where those people worked, and those are sights that the inspectors want to see," McCarthy tells Kroft. "They have the capability to listen to inspector conversations. It’s still their country. It’s a very significant advantage."

Iraqis will also be permitted to cover the ears of inspectors and shout "LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" if they deem the conversation to be infringing in Iraqi dignity, sovereignity, privacy, sensitivity, or too boring. A long-time fan of the TV series "Get Smart", Blix has not ruled out the use of a "Cone of Silence" for sensitive conversations.

Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans "Mad Dog" Blix
"And I will strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers!"


Blix outlined some other ways in which Saddam will be signalled that this time the UN really, really means it:


For instance, this time I'll wear a bowler hat, which is much more imposing than the feathered trilby I wore back in the Nineties. And I'll be carrying a red handkerchief, which is so close to being aggressive that I'll probably change my mind and not carry it.

Blix also expressed his hope that the Iraqis would buy into tales of the "Mass Destruction Fairy", who upon finding nuclear/chemical/biological weapons under the pillows of sleeping Iraqis, would take the weapons and leave gifts of money in their place.

Blix's second in command, a six foot tall rabbit named Harvey, declined to be interviewed. However, Blix whispered that Harvey was "given to drink" and and not to be trusted in any case. He also pointed out with no small pride the diverse and multicultural nature of the inspection team. A quick survey of "Hi There, Iraqis! My name is ______ and my family lives at _______" nametags gives some idea of what a colourful group has been assembled:


  • Old Blind Pete

  • Muhammed

  • "Saddam? I'm all over that guy like Ozzy on a bat."
  • Death To America

  • Mohammed

  • Hans

  • Franz

  • Muhammed B.

  • Uday H.

  • The Power Twins

  • Muhammed Al J.

  • I.P. Nightly

  • The Great Satan

  • Darth Vadar

  • The Merely Adequate Satan

  • Muhammed C.

  • The Swedish Special Olympics Dune Buggy Racing Team

  • Jeff Spicoli

  • Frodo B.

  • Osama B.

  • Hillary C.

  • R. Gebhardt

  • Luke Skywalker

  • Mohammed W.

  • B. Streisand

  • Condoleeza Stole My Pizza, Yes She Did

  • The Green Goblin

  • Mohammed K.
  • Along with no fewer than eighty two men named "Muhammed", the team also includes an old Twinkie wrapper, the late Walt Disney, a stubborn mule named Karl, several pissed-off Amish people, and a truckload of bedding plants.

    Yes, folks --- we are trusting this guy, Hans Blix, the dynamic, effective yet non-aggressive weapons inspector, to disarm Saddam Hussein. The hens are, once again, in charge of the foxhouse.

    Posted by Steve at November 16, 2002 05:55 PM
    Comments

    Could the Iraqis really be that tricky?

    Posted by: Anna on November 17, 2002 01:19 PM

    Maybe Mr Blix took the word `aggressive' literally.
    Or are you urging the inspectors to initiate force?

    Posted by: Anton Sherwood on November 17, 2002 10:31 PM

    Anton: if I had to guess, I'd say that Mr. Blix didn't realize that Americans tend to use "aggressive" as "assertive," not "violent." In my mind at least, aggressive and violent are different (but related) characteristics, but perhaps the same people who see Americans as cowboys might think that that particular dictionary definition of "aggressive" has more weight than the other 3 or 4.

    Oh, and maybe you should define "initiate force." If you mean "force their way into locations that the Iraqis try to keep them out of," then I think they should "initiate force," and I'd like to hear your reasons if you disagree.

    Posted by: Steve Gigl on November 18, 2002 11:00 AM

    Ehhh... what I'm commenting on here more than anything is Blix getting his back up over the use of the word "aggressive", as if anyone expects him to kick down doors and kneecap anyone who gives him any trouble. And perhaps the fact that Blix seems to regard this as some kind of Jeeves and Wooster diplomatic game, where Saddam pretends that he doesn't have any bad things and Blix pretends to believe him so that nobody's feelings are hurt.

    I don't know whether Blix's acknowledgement of how many ways the inspections can be made ineffective is a good or bad sign... good in that the man has some grounding in reality (however tenuous), bad in knowing this, he's nonetheless going to go ahead and do a "dynamic and effective" job... it had a "Bridge On the River Kwai" vibe that I find troubling.

    As for "initiating force" --- there's some more semantic arguing for y'all. What would Saddam had to have done in the past for this NOT to be intitating force? Where's the threshold beyond which one rightly can say, "He started it!"?


    Posted by: Steve on November 19, 2002 02:04 AM

    No, you misunderstood the inspectors- they said they were going to initiate FARCE.

    Posted by: Malcolm J. on November 19, 2002 10:25 AM

    I just want to know where the AFLAC duck is in all this.

    Posted by: aelfheld on November 19, 2002 11:02 AM

    What about Jacques Strappe, the well-known supporter?

    Posted by: Greg on November 19, 2002 10:49 PM

    File under hined-site or Quixotic revenge:

    Guess what, Ha, ha, Hans Blix was right and you were a big sucker. You are a great writer by the way which I guess proves you went to college.
    It is funny to me how crazy rational thought and responsible behavior has begun to sound to Bush supporters.
    We may enjoy the same cartoons but who lives in Bizzaro World now sucka.

    Posted by: barry on March 16, 2004 09:06 AM
    Post a comment