• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Dvlpts; More Criticism of Iraq Policy

Iraq News, AUGUST 18, 1998

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

I.   WASH TIMES EDITORIAL, "IRAQ POLICY MELTDOWN," AUG 17
II.  JOHN BOLTON, TIME IS SHORT, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, AUG 24
III. FRANK GAFFNEY, THE ELEVENTH HOUR, AUG 17
IV.  ARNOLD BEICHMAN, THE IRAQI THREAT TO ISRAEL, WASH TIMES, AUG 17
   Yesterday, AP/Reuters reported that Tariq Aziz briefed the Iraqi 
cabinet on his talks with Prakash Shah, Kofi Annan's envoy, sent to 
Baghdad in an attempt to persuade Iraq to change its position on 
inspections.  Iraq refused and said that it will respond Monday to the 
message Shah brought.
   Today's NYT reported that Iraq's UN ambassador confirmed Baghdad's 
position, saying that UNSCOM/IAEA had been "unjust and unfair," while 
America's UN ambassador asserted that Iraq has "put itself in a box."  
Bill Richardson promised that the UNSC "would not allow Iraq to goad it 
into 'precipitous action.'"   
   Indeed, today's Wash Post reported that the UNSC will respond to 
Iraq's latest defiance by sending letters to the heads of UNSCOM/IAEA 
advising them to continue operations, but without giving any guidance on 
how to respond to Baghdad's threats.  Also, Annan seems resentful of the 
new US position.  He is on vacation and, according to Wash Post sources, 
"believes the United States is trying to foist what they called 'a 
mission impossible' on him as part of its attempt to disengage from its 
old policy of threatening force."
   Also today, Tom Friedman wrote, "It's time for the President to make 
clear exactly what his Iraq policy is, which simply is not clear 
anymore.  What is clear is that the Administration is playing 
games-trying to shift responsibility for Iraq policy from the White 
House to the United Nations, which is to shift it to nowhere.  What is 
clear is that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has signaled the 
chief UN weapons inspector, Richard Butler, that the Administration does 
not want to stir up any surprise inspections right now.  If the 
Clintonites walk away from their responsibilities on Iraq it is the end 
of their foreign policy."
  The NYT, in today's lead editorial, wrote of last night's presidential 
address, "The truth is a potent weapon,  but it is not one Mr. Clinton 
is used to handling. . .  Here was a man of compassionate impulse and 
lofty ambition who went to Washington with virtually every imaginable 
political skill except one.  He seemed to think he was immune from a 
rule that leaps out from any reading of modern Presidencies.  Everything 
comes out sooner or later."
  Perhaps, it is beginning to be understood that Clinton dealt with 
national security affairs, or some national security affairs, in the 
same way that he dealt with his personal life.  He did things no 
responsible person in his position would do; the chickens come home to 
roost; and he and his senior officials, rather than straighten things 
out, fall back on "spinning," manipulation, and etc.   
  The editors of the Wash Times wrote yesterday, "President Clinton is 
not the only one who owes his fellow countrymen an explanation.  So does 
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; and it needs to be forthcoming 
fast."  Referring to reports about her having blocked UNSCOM 
inspections, they said, "This would place Mrs. Albright squarely in 
contravention of US official policy on Iraq, as well as numerous UN 
resolutions mandating full access for the inspectors to Saddam's 
arsenal."  And they warned, "Clinton administration policy is caving 
like a sink hole.  These developments will completely decimate American 
credibility in dealing with the greatest menace to the stability of the 
Middle East or perhaps just credibility period. . . . It is of pressing 
urgency that the foreign relations committees of the House and the 
Senate return from recess immediately to start hearings to determine 
what in the world has been going on." 
  John Bolton, in The Weekly Standard, wrote that reports of US 
obstruction of UNSCOM inspections, if true, "Lay the foundation for a 
national security scandal of immense proportions, reflecting an 
unprecedented level of duplicity that Congress must fully expose.  If 
true, these reports show behavior by the Clinton administration that 
goes beyond its normal incompetence and amounts to what can only be 
called malfeasance in office.  Indeed, if true, these reports could 
create a domestic political crisis for the president that will make him 
long for the return of the Lewinsky scandal."   
  Bolton also cautioned that international support for what remains of 
US policy on Iraq could collapse suddenly and unexpectedly, "The United 
States is completely unprepared for this challenge . . . Time is 
depressingly short and the potential damage for the United States, in 
the Gulf and around the world, is enormous."
  Yesterday, Frank Gaffney, particularly concerned about Sat's NYT 
report on Iraq's nuclear program, warned of the same. He advised, 
"Despite the weak and distracted leadership that afflicts American 
security policy these days, as a practical matter, the United States has 
no choice but to try another end-run.  This one should be aimed at 
bringing about a safe and permanent end to Saddam Hussein's weapons of 
mass destruction programs by removing from power the regime that is 
determined to pursue them at all costs.  There is no mystery as to what 
such an effort will require.  It was laid out publicly last spring by a 
bipartisan group of 40 former senior government officials and other 
experts in an open letter to Present Clinton circulated by former 
Democratic congressman Stephen Solarz and former Reagan Assistant 
Secretary of Defense Richard Perle.  The Solarz-Perle strategy is . . . 
the only option that currently presents itself that has a chance of 
succeeding on satisfactory terms and at an acceptable cost.  The essence 
of this new approach would be to use American military, financial, 
diplomatic and other assets to facilitate the creation and operation of 
a Free Iraq on territory whose airspace is currently denied Saddam by 
the US-enforced no-fly zone.  Working with the broadly based Iraqi 
National Congress (INC) to reestablish in Iraq an effective opposition 
to the Baghdad regime, the United States could give both the people of 
Iraq and its neighbors an alternative to Saddam.  . . . After years of 
studiously ignoring, discounting and--worst of all--actively sabotaging 
the building blocks to this approach, the Administration has lately 
begun to respond to congressional proponents by signaling a new interest 
in pursuing such a strategy.  Sources on Capitol Hill indicate, however, 
that the interest still seems more rhetorical than real.  If so, the 
result will be to compound the present fiasco created by the Clinton 
Iraqi policy, not to ameliorate it."
  Finally, the Hoover Institution's Arnold Beichman described the Iraqi 
threat to Israel.  He cautioned Israelis that the US scheme for 
disarming Iraq is fast collapsing.  You cannot rely on it.  The threat 
is represented most directly by Iraq's unconventional weapon, both those 
that it retains and those that it will have in the future, as well as 
the delivery systems for those weapons that Iraq has, and will have.  
The US is far away, but "for Israel, it's a survival quest.  Suicide 
bombers are a limited threat to Israel.  But biological and chemical 
weapons are something else again."