The Star-Ledger January 28, 2003
U.N. hears inspector rebuke Iraq
Pentagon hoping to avoid another foe: Iraqi summer
By John Hassell
Star-Ledger Staff
The arguments about Iraq at the United Nations have settled into a predictable pattern by now. The harried weapons inspectors ask for more time. European and Asian leaders say, "Yes, that's reasonable." And the United States replies, "No, time is running out."
Washington's sense of urgency is driven, in part, by frustration with Saddam Hussein's lack of cooperation with international demands, and by the security threat he is thought to pose. But it stems also from a simple reality: the approach of Iraq's long, hot summer.
U.S. military planners would prefer to mount a campaign in Iraq before the end of March, when temperatures hover in the 70s before spiking sharply upward. Between June and September, the mercury often crests above 110 degrees.
Such blistering heat would wear down troops, particularly those wearing chemical protection suits, and could produce numerous weather-related injuries. Because the heat requires units to carry extra stores of water, it could also slow troop movement.
"If we have to go during the summer, we will," said retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, who served in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm. "It's not a deal-breaker. But clearly we would strongly prefer to have a conflict before mid-May."
As a result, the demands of military logistics are beginning to trump diplomatic concerns, said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"The mobilization is acquiring a momentum of its own that may prove irreversible," Cirincione said. "But that is not a good enough reason to go to war. It makes it look as if the whole weapons inspections effort was a charade."
The reluctance of U.S. officials to grant inspectors more time has drawn criticism from longtime allies Germany and France and has been received poorly by top officials at the United Nations.
The inspectors "should be given the time to do their work, and all of us ... must realize that time will be necessary," said U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan shortly before his top weapons inspectors issued their 60-day progress reports yesterday.
In those reports, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei cited numerous examples of Iraqi noncompliance. But ElBaradei said, "Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course."
Several Security Council members seem inclined to offer the inspectors what they want. "More time is needed," said China's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Zhang Yishan. Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said his country, too, wants inspections to continue.
U.S. officials dismissed any idea of delay, arguing Saddam has shown no commitment to abandoning his weapons programs. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Baghdad has engaged instead in an "active program of denial and deception."
Kenneth M. Pollack, the National Security Council's director of Gulf affairs during the Clinton administration, said he expected the Bush White House to hold up yesterday's reports as evidence additional inspections would be worthless.
"I think the Bush administration got what they wanted from the Blix report," Pollack said. At times it sounded as if Blix "was laying out a bill of indictment against the Iraqis" in a manner "much more effective than what the administration has done."
In any case, Pollack said, U.S. officials are likely to push hard, and soon, to put together a coalition for war in Iraq before the onset on summer. "The issue of time is an important one," he said.
Besides the weather factor, Pollack said, there is the danger of allowing troops deployed in the Persian Gulf to lose their fighting edge through extended delays. And a third danger is the risk of angering regional allies.
Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which have provided logistical support for American troops despite popular opposition to a war, have "gone out on a ledge," Pollack said. "The last thing they want is for us to pull back now and try again in the fall."
If the United States does decide to delay military action in favor of additional inspections, Baghdad would consider that an important tactical victory, said Amatzia Baram, an expert on Iraq at Israel's Haifa University.
The Iraqis "feel that if it takes a few more months, the whole project will be shelved," Baram said. Because of the military challenges posed by the Iraqi summer, a delay until May or June probably means "you can pretty much forget the war," he said.
As a result, the United States now finds itself in exactly the position that Bush administration hard-liners wanted most to avoid, said François Boo, a defense analyst at the Alexandria, Va., think tank GlobalSecurity.org.
"They are trapped in a situation where a U.N. process is slowing things down at precisely the time that military conditions are optimal," said Boo (pronounced "boe"). "The way they see it is this: The longer they wait, the more they lose the initiative."
Copyright © 2003, The Star-Ledger
