• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Dvlpts; Criticism of Iraq Policy

Iraq News, AUGUST 25, 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.   US, IRAQ TOUGHEN STANDS WITH SHAH REPORT, NYT AUG 25
II.  NYT EDITORIAL, US MUST BACK UNSCOM, AUG 24
III. JAMES ANDERSON, US MUST BACK IRAQI OPPOSITION, WASH TIMES, AUG 24
   Today is the 20th day without weapons inspections in Iraq. 
   Yesterday, the UNSC met to consider Prakash Shah's report on his trip 
to Baghdad.  Shah told the UNSC "that in two essentially perfunctory 
meetings  . . .  he had been told that the United Nations was offering 
nothing new and therefore there was nothing to discuss."   The US 
position, as explained by deputy US representative, Peter Burleigh, is 
to propose suspending sanctions reviews until Iraq renews its 
co-operation [such that it was] with UNSCOM.  That is the new US 
policy--"deterrence."  
  And Iraq's UN ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon reiterated Iraq's position, 
as stated by the Iraqi leadership, Aug 5, threatening UNSCOM monitoring, 
as well [see "Iraq News," Aug 6].  As the NYT explained, Hamdoon "did 
not rule out shutting down all future technical monitoring and 
surveillance of Iraq  . . . He said all options remained open to Iraq."
   Yesterday, the NYT editors strongly protested the new US policy.  The 
NYT warned, "Washington cannot afford to slacken the pressure on Iraq 
for long.  Now that Saddam Hussein has disabled the international 
inspection system designed to prevent him from building biological, 
chemical, and nuclear weapons, he may quickly be able to produce enough 
germ agents to menace his neighbors.  Since the end of the 1991 Persian 
Gulf war, Washington has been firmly committed to keeping Baghdad from 
ever again building mass destruction weapons.  But with international 
support for arms inspections and sanctions against Iraq weakening, some 
Administration officials seem ready to quietly abandon that goal.  
Instead, they would concentrate American efforts on stopping Baghdad 
from ever using such terror weapons.  Switching from prevention to 
containment would be a grave error."
  And yesterday, James Anderson, defense and national security analyst 
at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in the Wash Times, "The Clinton 
administration's Iraq policy lies in shambles.  . . . Mr. Clinton 
apparently believes that what Iraq wants most is the lifting of 
sanctions.  If this were true, Saddam would already have complied with 
UN inspectors."  Anderson advised that the US adopt "a comprehensive 
approach that melds political, economic, and military action aimed at 
deposing Saddam.  For example, the United States should extend the 
military 'no-fly zone' over the entire country, recognize a provisional 
government in Northern Iraq based on the leadership of the Iraqi 
national Congress, and intensify covert measures to pressure Saddam.  
When possible, these actions should be coordinated with Iraq's 
neighbors--Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, and 
Israel--rather than working with the UN Security Council.  In short, a 
full-court press is necessary to discredit Saddam's regime and create 
conditions for its downfall."