A PLAN FOR SADDAM
Iraq News, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1998
By Laurie MylroieThe 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. SAUDI PRESS WARNS IRAQ, AFP, NOV 9 II. EGYPTIAN LEADERS REITERATE OPPOSITION TO STRIKE, AFP, NOV 10 III. IRAQI OFFICIAL WARNS OF CRISES AND VIOLENCE, MENA, NOV 8 IV. "A PLAN FOR SADDAM," NEWSWEEK, NOV 16 V. JINSA, OVERTHROW SADDAM, NOV 10 VI. IRAQI PRESS CITES NYT TO BLAST IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, AL JUMHURIYAH, NOV 4 Today is the 98th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the 11th day without UNSCOM monitoring. The 238-count indictment against Bin-Laden et. al., issued last week for the US embassy bombings, can be found at: http://www.fbi.gov/fo/nyfo/prladen.htm [courtesy of David Schenker, TWI] It is increasingly clear that the Saudis do not oppose a US military strike against Iraq, if Saddam doesn't back down. As AFP, Nov 9, reported, the Saudi press warned Saddam on Monday "that Arab states will not be able to block US-led military action if he continues to defy the United Nations over arms inspections." Yesterday, according to AFP's headline, the Saudi press warned Iraq of another Desert Storm. But Egypt has again reaffirmed its opposition to a US strike. According to AFP, Nov 10, Osama al-Baz, senior political advisor to Pres Mubarak, told Al-Ahram, "Egypt rejects the use of force by the United States or any other country each time differences with Iraq emerge because this would mean a policy of double standards." Egypt's Foreign Minister, Amr Mussa, told a Qatari paper that it is "necessary to carry out a revision of the work of the Special Commission in the wake of the remarks and criticism levelled at certain (arms) inspectors." No major Arab/Muslim country speaks out on Iraq's behalf to the extent that Egypt does. Egypt's defense of Iraq/criticism of the US seems to surpass that of every major country in the world, including Russia and China. In response to the last "Iraq News," an Israeli expert on Iraq was kind enough to note that while there was no proof that Iraqi intelligence was working with Egyptian fundamentalists, it was plausible and something to be looked into. MENA, Nov 8, from Baghdad, reported that an unnamed Iraqi official "warned that the cycle of violence and chaos in the region may expand if the United States continues what he described as its aggressive policy. . . . Failure to restructure [UNSCOM] he said, will not only keep sanctions in place, but will also cause further crises, prolong the US military presence in the Gulf, and lead to further popular rejection, rebellion, and violence." And Iraqi Foreign Minister, Muhammad al-Sahhaf, told Qatar's al-Jazirah Space Channel Television, Nov 9, that "any use of military force against Iraq will violently shake the region and will not lead to any solution. It will cause a dangerous deterioration in the situation whose consequences are only known by God." Newsweek, Nov 16, explained US decision making prior to Iraq's Oct 31 decision to suspend UNSCOM monitoring, "Maintaining sanctions is at the heart of the new US strategy . . . The blueprint was developed last spring by the National Security Council, in response to a plea from national security adviser Sandy Berger. During last February's standoff, a frustrated Berger called one senior official, Richard Clarke, in the middle of the night and complained, astonishing (given all the war talk), that 'we have no strategy on Iraq.' . . . After an extensive study, an ad hoc group pulled together by Clarke concluded-in papers so sensitive they were never circulated below the deputy cabinet level-that, short of invasion, the United States had no good military options on Iraq. Airstrikes were not going to topple Saddam or force him to give the United Nations unfettered access. And UN inspections were overrated: it was simply not feasible to track down all of Saddam's biochemical stash." Yesterday, DoD spokesman, Kenneth Bacon, detailed US force deployments, "In the Gulf today we have 23,500 US soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. There are 2,600 soldiers, 14,300 sailors and Marines; 5,600 in the Air Force; and then there are joint headquarters and other joint units comprised of 1,000 people. We have 23 ships in the area and that's principally the USS EISENHOWER Carrier Battle Group and the ESSEX Amphibious Ready Group. Of those 23 ships, 14 of them are combatants and 8 are Tomahawk capable. We have in the area today 171 aircraft including air to air, air to ground, dual role, support and attack helicopters." That did not include US forces in Turkey. Bacon also explained that when "we reduced our forces in the Gulf from about 40,000 people last spring, we changed the way we deal with the forces in the Gulf in two ways. First, we left behind a significantly higher number of cruise missiles. We doubled the cruise missile supply in the Gulf. Second, we, while pulling forces out, built in a very rapid reinforcement capability and that involves putting certain naval and Air Force forces on a 96 hour tether which means that certain forces are designated at certain times-for instance an air expeditionary force-to be ready to pull up stakes and get to the Gulf within 96 hours." And today's Wash Post explained, "The administration did not commit itself yesterday to an expensive buildup of forces that would rival last winter's $1.4 billion deployment to the Persian Gulf. The USS Enterprise carrier battle group and USS Bellau Wood amphibious group, ordered to steam faster to the region, are early replacements for warships already on station. When they arrive on Nov. 23 and Nov. 26, the administration will have to decide whether to leave the USS Eisenhower and USS Essex groups in place-doubling the naval power on hand-or to allow them to return to home ports as scheduled. Defense officials said a third carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, was likely to replace the Eisenhower if Clinton decides to keep two in the region. The Air Force. . . is standing by to deploy an Air Expeditionary Force of land-based warplanes to Bahrain or Kuwait. Heavy B-52 bombers and stealthy F-117 A strike planes could move quickly into place, but have not been ordered to do so." As for Iraqi movements, Bacon said yesterday, "There has been little change in the Iraqi air defenses. There has been some dispersion of Republican Guard and regular army units over the last week or so. That is they've spread out over larger areas." The Wash Post also reported that "senior administration officials said they still hope the orchestration of warning and force movements will impel Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to reverse his decisions of Aug 5 and Oct 31 to halt all work by United Nations arms inspectors." On the Jim Lehrer Newshour, yesterday, Iraqi UN ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, said that if there is a US strike, Baghdad would end all UNSCOM operations in Iraq. If there is a US strike, what should its objective be? Following the last confrontation, JCS Chairman, Henry Shelton told the Wash Post, Mar 1, "You can't say we will destroy his WMD capability because you just flat can't do that. . . You can diminish it, you can certainly take out those things that are obvious. He's got delivery systems he can use. He's got different types of plants and things that he manufactures stuff in that can assist or aid his WMD capabilities. But when it comes to his storage things, you don't know where that is, and the dual use facilities -- you're not planning to hit hospitals. So he's still got things that can be converted in fairly rapid period of time, ranging from one week up to about six weeks, depending on whether it's chemical or biological." The Wash Post today reported that Maj. Gen. Fahad Al Amir, deputy chief of Kuwait's armed services, said in public remarks that "US military strikes should target 'Saddam Hussein and his military machine' with the objective of toppling the regime. In an interview he added that the targets should include 'the ring close to Saddam which maintains his survival.' Kuwait . . . favors establishment of a wide enclave in southern Iraq, akin to one already in the north, in which Iraqi ground forces would be prohibited and Shiite rebels encourage to actively oppose the regime. 'In the south, the revolution is there . . It's underground. It's ready.'" That is also pretty much what the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs suggested yesterday. In addition to military strikes against Iraqi weapons sites, it advised, "Congress has given the president authority to provide overt assistance-including weapons-to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . Ultimately, this is the most sure way to remove the threat of Saddam from the region and his foot from the neck of the Iraqi people." Finally, an Iraqi newspaper drew on the authority of the NYT to blast the Iraq Liberation Act [see "Iraq News," Oct 26]. Al Jumhuriyah, Nov 4, wrote, "In its issue on 19 October 1998, The New York Times published an article indicating the futility of their desperate draft law and noting that it is not guaranteed to achieve anything. . . . The New York Times also reminded everyone that the ones whom the US administration considers Iraqi 'opposition,' who are ready to accept its terms, have not achieved any result after receiving previous funds and aid, and that the only apparent and tangible result from their previous acts was the disbursement of financial aid to themselves and gaining the curse of the steadfast Iraqi people who are courageously fighting the conspiracy of genocide represented by 'a total blockade.' . . . In view of this consistent fact as part of the Iraqi people's life-a fact that is acknowledged by The New York Times, the US intelligence services, and their rancorous elements in the Congress-the harvest of their draft law, to which they allocated $97 million, will be similar to other desperate plans, which failed and were crushed by the gigantic Iraqi will." I. SAUDI PRESS WARNS IRAQ Arabs can not block military action against Iraq: Saudi papers RIYADH, Nov 9 (AFP) Saudi newspapers warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on Monday that Arab states will not be able to block US-led military action if he continues to defy the United Nations over arms inspections. "It is regrettable that the Iraqi regime decides each time to embark on a risky venture, ignoring the fate of millions of Iraqis, said Al-Jazira, criticising what it called the "irresponsible actions" of Baghdad. Although "no Arab or Islamic state backs military action against Iraq, nobody will be able to prevent a recourse to such action if Iraqi leaders persist in their refusal" to cooperate with UN arms inspectors, it said. Al-Medina, another Saudi daily, said Baghdad was mistaken if it believed a fresh crisis would strengthen its case for a lifting of UN sanctions, which have been in force ever since Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Such a tactic was "a gamble lost in advance," said the newspaper, urging Baghdad "to spare what is left of Iraq's potential and not to expose the country to more destruction." Iraq triggered the latest crisis on October 31 by halting all cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of its disarmament, a body which Baghdad accuses of spying for the United States to prolong sanctions. On Sunday, officials and diplomats in Riyadh warned in private that the Saudi kingdom could back the use of force against Iraq this time if diplomacy fails to resolve the crisis. In contrast, Saudi Arabia was opposed to similar threats by United States and Britain during a previous crisis in February when Iraq refused to allow UNSCOM to search presidential sites. II. EGYPTIAN LEADERS REITERATE OPPOSITION TO STRIKE Egypt opposed to military strike on Iraq CAIRO, Nov 10 (AFP) - Egypt is opposed to a US mi1itary strike against Iraq for its defiance of UN weapons inspections, Osama al-Baz, political acivisor to President Hosni Mubarak, said in remarks published Tuesday. "Egypt rejects the use of force by the United States or any other country each time differences with Iraq emerge because this would mean a policy of double standards," the government daily Al-Ahram quoted Baz as saying. Baz, who called for a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis noted that military force "is not used against countries such as Israel which violate all international legislation." Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Mussa told the Qatari newspaper Al Raya meanwhile that Baghdad had a legitimate right in calling for changes to the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of its disarmament. It is "necessary to carry out a revision of the work of the Special Commission in the wake of the remarks and criticism levelled at certain (arms) inspectors," Mussa said. He noted that US arms inspector Scott Ritter, who has retired, passed on information to Israel "In my opinion, that's the worst thing to have happened to UNSCOM," said Mussa. UNSCOM chief Richard Butler has acknowledged that his inspectors had worked with Israel, after reports in the Washington Post that they shared intelligence with the Jewish state from US spy planes on loan to UNSCOM. But at the same time, Egypt's foreign minister called for Iraq "to respect UN resolutions" and said that, "in return, the sanctions will not be eternal." Egypt would be "ready to play any role which would be useful to resolve the crisis between Iraq and the United Nations over arms inspections," but the circumstances must be favourable," he said. . . III. IRAQI OFFICIAL WARNS OF CRISES AND VIOLENCE Cairo, MENA, in Arabic, 1045 GMT 8 Nov 98 [FBIS Translated Text] Baghdad, 8 Nov (MENA)-An Iraqi official has called on the Arab leaders and the world nations to work for a fair settlement of the current Iraq-UN crisis. He warned that the cycle of violence and chaos in the region may expand if the United States continues what he described as its aggressive policy. The official, who refused to be identified, told a MENA correspondent in Baghdad that the past eight years witnessed many crises between Iraq and the UN Special Commission [UNSCOM]. Those crises, he added, were political, not legal. They were created by UNSCOM but found political and propaganda cover through US interference in the work of the UN Security Council. The Iraqi official accused UNSCOM of serving the US policy. Failure to restructure the commission, he said, will not only keep sanctions in place, but will also cause further crises, prolong the US military presence in the Gulf, and lead to further popular rejection, rebellion, and violence. [Description of source: Egyptian Government News Agency] IV. "A PLAN FOR SADDAM," NEWSWEEK, NOV 16 Newsweek, November 16, 1998 The White House months ago cooked up a new strategy for crippling Iraq. Will it work? By Michael Hirsh and John Barry It's been a year since William Co-hen strode onto the set of ABC's "This Week" with a sack of sugar, and tried to scare the bejesus out of America. "Call this anthrax," the Defense secre-tary intoned, pointing to a five-pound bag of Domino's that, he said, could kill hun-dreds of thousands. His act was part of an aggressive U.S. campaign to portray Saddam Hussein as a world class threat---and to justify military strikes that would at last end the impasse over Iraq's weapons programs. But the effort backfired. A few months later, when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright compared the Iraqi tyrant to Hitler, she was practically laughed out of an Ohio "town meeting." To some, it even looked like Saddam the bully was the one getting bullied. The Saudis and other Arabs opposed using force, and France and Russia, eager to do oil deals, began bargaining to lift sanctions. By August, when Saddam again refused to co-operate with U.N. inspectors, only feeble threats emanated from the White House. And it appeared to lack any kind of plan. Not quite. In fact the administration now says, it's had a strategy all along. The new tactics went on display last week, after an emboldened Saddam defied the United Nations by threatening to kick its weapons inspectors out altogether. This time, not only did Cohen avoid the Sunday chat shows, he didn't even bring his traveling press with him when he flew to the gulf to build support for a military strike that could come as early as this week. There were no town meetings-especially in Ohio-and few news briefings. The new tack: quiet consensus-building first, war drums later and a careful consideration of when to pick a fight-especially when the most critical challenge is to maintain worldwide support for economic sanctions against Iraq. Think of it as rope-a-dope diplomacy. Having failed at taking the offensive against Saddam, the administration decided--in an unannounced change of policy last spring--to hold back the military option until the Iraqi leader overreached by doing something really flagrant. Now, "Iraq is more isolated than at any time since the gulf war," says one Pentagon source. Saddam's most recent flouting of the United Nations left even the French and Russians little choice last week but to condemn him. Though the U.N. Security Council, in a resolution Thursday, balked at an explicit threat of force, U.S. officials could scarcely contain their glee over what they described as private assents from Paris to Riyadh for strikes. "We expected Iraq to shoot itself in the foot," one senior official claimed during a frank discussion of the new tactics. "So we bided our time." In the past, he said, other nations "saw the United States as trigger-happy" over lesser issues, like gaining access to Saddam's palaces. That's why, in February, the White House agreed to a compromise inspection deal brokered by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. If it launched strikes unilater-ally, the administration feared "there was a real chance ... that the U.N. sanctions regime might be broken," the official said. Maintaining sanctions is at the heart of the new U.S. strategy--and of the unpublicized plan to cripple Saddam. Newsweek has learned that the blueprint was developed last spring by the National Security Council, in response to a plea from national-security adviser Sandy Berger. During last February's standoff, a frustrated Berger called one senior official, Richard Clarke, in the middle of the night and complained, astonishingly (given all the war talk), that "we have no strategy on Iraq," an NSC source says. After an extensive study, an ad hoc group pulled together by Clarke concluded--in papers so sensitive they were never circulated below the deputy cabinet level--that, short of invasion, the United States had no good military options on Iraq. Air strikes were not going to topple Saddam or force him to give the United Nations unfettered access. And U.N. inspections were overrated: it was simply not feasible to track down all of Saddam's biochemical stash. V. JINSA, OVERTHROW SADDAM JINSA report November 10, 1998 Number 87 Iraq - Again Iraq tosses the UNSCOM inspectors - again. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen travels the region looking for Arab and Turkish "support" for some American policy or other - again. They reject him - again. The President waffles between threats of military action and a collapse into no action at all -again. The Administration denies that it is waffling again. The French and the Russians push to end sanctions on Iraq - again. Saddam wins - again. And why not? After all he, not we, seems to grasp the fundamental point here: Saddam's goal is regional hegemony, which he plans to ensure by having an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver it. He has already demonstrated his willingness to hit civilian targets (including Muslim ones) with missiles (Iranian cities during the Iran-Iraq War and Tel Aviv during the Gulf War) and chemicals (the Kurdish city of Halabja in 1988). The valiant inspectors of UNSCOM have been a tremendous impediment to his plan, and their ouster is essential - at all costs. Against this backdrop, according to published reports the National Security Council decided last spring that it is not feasible to track down all of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons caches, and that military strikes could not force Saddam to let UNSCOM search the country unimpeded. The NSC essentially threw in the towel, leaving sanctions as the only face-saving mechanism for an administration that wanted to pretend it is "doing something" about Iraq. President Clinton's most recent indication that he will again avoid military action and rely on sanctions carries little cost for the regime. A terrible price is, of course, paid by certain segments of the Iraqi population, creating tension between the "hardhearted" Americans and some of our erstwhile allies. Hungry children are positively useful to the Butcher of Baghdad, as old Gulf War partners argue with each other rather than with him. In the meantime, inspections have ceased, Saddam remains in control of the country and the arsenal, and the Iraqi people suffer. Two thoughts: First, military action may not be able to force Saddam to let UNSCOM inspectors search the country. We agree with Gen. John Sheehan, USMC (ret.) who said, "Bombing something into submission has never worked." And an Osirak-type raid couldn't destroy the whole arsenal in any event. But military action could destroy the sites UNSCOM had determined most likely to be dangerous, make Saddam pay in currency he values, and might undermine the confidence his Republican Guard has in him. And it might stiffen the backbone of others in the region. Second, Congress has given the President authority to provide overt assistance - including weapons - to the Iraqi democratic opposition. The President should use it and throw the full force of American prestige into a concerted effort to dislodge the current regime. Ultimately this is the most sure way to remove the threat of Saddam from the region and his foot from the neck of the Iraqi people. Comments? Send email to info@jinsa.org Access Past Reports at JINSA Online at www.jinsa.org VI. IRAQI PRESS CITES NYT TO BLAST IRAQ LIBERATION ACT Baghdad Al-Jumhuriyah in Arabic 4 Nov 98 Article by 'Abdallah 'Abbas: "A US Auction To Hire Plotters" [FBIS Translated Text] Anyone who acquaints himself with, and carefully reads, a US Congressional draft law called "The Law on Helping the Iraqi Opposition Organizations," will understand how the administration of an organized US gang and its elements in the Congress view those who "serve them" and even those who search for these servants in a manner full of clear contempt and devoid of any appreciation whatsoever. These elements set conditions for their servants regardless of their status or name, so the latter should only be "obedient" and ready to implement orders. The first paragraph of their "dirty" law stresses that "they choose the ones who deserve to be paid money in return for plotting against Iraq's national will as well as those who are ready to accurately implement what the US Administration wants." The rancorous US gang in their administration and the members of the Mafia in the Congress have drafted their law in a hostile and rancorous way. Some political and media circles inside the United States itself are confident that this is a futile draft law and that the plans for its implementation are not guaranteed in the first place. In its issue on 19 October 1998, The New York Times published an article indicating the futility of their desperate draft law and noting that it is not guaranteed to achieve anything. This is because the newspaper knows that any party accepting the terms of this law and standing against Iraq's national will cannot represent anyone or any group that has a real national tendency, and that such parties cannot enjoy any popularity--and they never enjoyed such popularity--among the Iraqi people. The New York Times also reminded everyone that the ones whom the US Administration considers Iraqi "opposition," who are ready to accept its terms, have not achieved any result after receiving previous funds and aid, and that the only apparent and tangible result from their previous acts was the disbursement of financial aid to themselves and gaining the curse of the steadfast Iraqi people who are courageously fighting the conspiracy of genocide represented by "a total blockade." In its article, The New York Times also says verbatim. "It seems that the US intelligence services do not know much about political life in Iraq." Despite all events and difficulties, the Iraqis, in their old and contemporary history, take pride in the fact that they did not relinquish their free, independent national will and that they absolutely rejected anyone who sought to impose on them any will away from their national pride or obstruct their free aspirations for building their own future. In view of this consistent fact as part of the Iraqi people's life--a fact that is acknowledged by The New York Times, the US intelligence services, and their rancorous elements in the Congress--the harvest of their draft law, to which they allotted $97 million, will be similar to other desperate plans, which failed and were crushed by the gigantic Iraqi will. In accordance with its primarily organized terrorist nature, the US Administration searches for agents, traitors, and mercenaries the same way the Hollywood companies do to create movie stars. These companies search for an "actor" who has certain criteria, so they make money out of him. After they get such an "actor," these companies add bright colors to him in order to secure profits that are much more than the money spent on publicity for him. But afterward, we can see this actor starving to death. This was the fate of most celebrated stars in Hollywood at the end of their lives. Yes, this evil administration uses the same method in search of agents with the aim of undermining the will of free peoples by setting the same conditions! It is known that this administration can get such agents, who do not have any roots or identity. But if this administration gets an agent with these criteria in Iraq, which is the base from which civilization radiated, or from among the honest Iraqis who take pride in their free will, particularly in their modern awakening in July 1968, we will then advise such an agent to save some of "the allocations for his agentry," so he can be buried outside the homeland as long as the Iraqi will is derived from the thought of great leader Saddam Husayn. [Description of source: Government-owned political newspaper]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
