Reuters April 1, 2003
U.S. war priorities shift away from disarming Iraq
By Paul Holmes
WASHINGTON, April 1 (Reuters) - When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spelled out the eight U.S. objectives in Iraq on day two of the war, he said the first was to topple Saddam Hussein and the second to locate and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
On day 10 of the war, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke restated those eight objectives "as Secretary Rumsfeld described just a week ago."
Ending the Iraqi president's rule remained top of the list, but finding Saddam's suspected chemical and biological weapons had slipped to fourth place and destroying them to fifth.
Objective No. 2 was "to capture or drive out terrorists sheltered in Iraq" and No. 3 was to "collect intelligence on terrorist networks," Clarke said.
References to terror, terrorists and terrorism -- words that resonate with Americans since the Sept. 11 attacks -- now arise more often in the face of unexpectedly stiff resistance from Iraqi fighters using guerrilla-style tactics.
President George W. Bush now more frequently describes Iraq's leaders as evil, brutal and tyrannical and his supporters as thugs. "Freeing the Iraqi people" has replaced disarming Iraq as the main focus of his speeches.
Some analysts see the re-ordering of priorities and shriller language as a response to the realities on the ground in Iraq. Saddam has not used non-conventional weapons and U.S. and British troops have so far not found any to justify a war which much of the international community opposes.
"It's the customary pattern," said Michael Codner, an analyst at Britain's Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies. "There hasn't been much incremental return on the WMD side for the democracies to gloat over," he said.
Many analysts, both in the United States and abroad, however, see the shifts either as a consequence of Bush's failure to making a convincing case for war or as evidence of a hidden agenda in the Middle East.
"I've always been of the view that one good argument is better than five bad ones," said John Pike, director of the Virginia-based strategic think-tank GlobalSecurity.org. "They've had five half-hearted ones, badly enunciated."
BUSH SHIFTS FOCUS
Bush ordered troops into Iraq under a new security doctrine, forged after Sept. 11 in the war on terrorism, that says the United States can launch a pre-emptive strike on a country it deems a threat before it is attacked itself.
In the case of Iraq, his argument was that Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction not only posed a threat to the region but could also fall into the hands of groups like al Qaeda and be turned on America.
When he gave Saddam 48 hours on March 17 to flee Iraq or face war, the entire thrust of Bush's address concerned Iraq's failure over 12 years to abide by U.N. resolutions. Disarming Iraq was an issue he raised no fewer than 11 times.
Since then, he has continued to talk of disarming Iraq, yet increasingly in a secondary manner. In a speech in Philadelphia on Monday, "freeing the Iraqi people" appeared to have become his main reason for going to war.
"We're coming with a mighty force to end the reign of your oppressors. We are coming to bring you food and medicine and a better life. And we are coming and we will not stop, we will not relent until your country is free," Bush said.
REGIME CHANGE
"Regime change" in Iraq was a bedrock of U.S. policy long before Bush tried to win U.N. backing for use of military force to disarm Iraq and failed in the face of international opposition led by France, Germany, Russia and China.
"We've been seeing hints of the real aim since Sept. 11, but now the cat is out of the bag," said Dietmar Herz, a political science professor at the University of Erfurt, Germany.
"What's especially alarming, in particular for Europeans is the religious emphasis that has been coming through from Bush lately. It's the crusade message, the fight of 'good versus evil' and 'right versus wrong'," he said.
Analysts in several other countries broadly opposed to the war said the shifting U.S. rhetoric would reinforce doubts about Bush's real motives in Iraq.
"Whether it's terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction or liberating Iraq and ousting Saddam, the excuses have been changing constantly," said Li Jianying, vice president of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.
"I think the basic reasoning behind the policy, as far as most people around the world are concerned, is for oil and control of the Gulf region," Li said.
Copyright © 2003
